CM 

r- 

^r 
LO 


CIFT  OF 
Author 


STUDIES    IN 


HBRODOTUS 


BY   A.  G.    LAI  R  U 


OF    THK     I'NlYKRSr 


MADISON,   WISCONSIN 
1904 


/ 

TV^-?^-   +£~<*^ 

( 


&.-••* 

J-^ 

STUDIES    IN 

HBRODOTUS 


BY   A.  G.    LAIRD 

OF    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    WISCONSIN 


MADISON,   WISCONSIN 
1904 


I.  The  Inscription   on  the  Serpent-Column  of 
Delphi,  and  its  Counterpart  at  Olympia. 

II.   Herodotus,  and  the  Greek  Forces  at  Salamis 
and  Plataea. 

III.   The  Battle  of  Salamis. 


.5.2- 
H45L3S 


THE   INSCRIPTION   ON   THE    SERPENT-COLUMN   OF 
DELPHI1  AND  ITS  COUNTERPART  AT  OLYMPIAD  •; 


No  satisfactory  explanation  has  yet  been  given  of  the  order 
in  which  the  Greek  states  stand  upon  the  celebrated  monument 
dedicated  at  Delphi  from  the  spoils  of  the  battle  of  Platsea.2  As 
is  well  known,  the  monument  consisted  of  a  golden  tripod,  stand- 
ing upon  a  bronze  column  of  three  intertwining  serpents.  The 
inscription  begins  upon  the  thirteenth  coil  from  the  base,  and 
the  names  stand  in  a  single  column,  three  upon  each  coil,  with 
the  exception  of  the  fourth  and  seventh,  upon  which  there  are 
four,  and  the  third,  which  hasi  but  two.  The  names  of  the 


'Roehl,  I.  G.  A.,  70;  Roberts,  Greek  Epigraphy,  No.  259;  Cauer,  Delec- 
tus,2 12;  Dittenberger,  S.  I.  G.,2  7;  Hicks,  Greek  Histor.  Inscrips.,  12; 
Fabricius,  Jahrb.  d.  k.  d.  arch.  Inst.,  I  (1886).  p.  176. 

The  inscription,  as  restored  by  Fabricius,  runs  as  follows: 

Tot'Sc  rov  4>Aeiacnoi  25 

Tpo£avioi 
15  'Ep/iiovds 

FaA.eibi 

TipvvOioi  IIoTa&iiaTcu 

5   'A0avatoi  . 


30   FavaKTO/oiets 
Teycarai  MvKavcts  KvQvioi 

2tKV<OVtOl  20     Keibl 

Aiytvarai  MaXiot 


10   Mcyapets  AtTT/ocarat 

Na£ioi 
'EpcrpicTs 


2Hdt.  IX.  81. 

720942 


4  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

Tenians  and  Siphnians,  which  stand  fourth  upon  the  seventh 
and  fourth  coils  respectively,  are  very  badly  written,1  and  it  i3 
admitted  that  they  are  later  insertions. 

The  difficulties  in  the  arrangement  of  namles  may  perhaps 
best  be  indicated  by  stating  the  chief  theories  that  have  been  ad- 
vanced in  explanation,  and  the  overwhelming  objections  to  them. 

.1.  i  Frick2  says :  "In  diesem  waren  deutlich  zwei  Gruppen; 
der  Festiandstaaten  und  Inselstaaten  gesondert,  deren  jede  mit 
den  unbedeutendsten  JVTachten  (Mykenaer — Kythnier,  Siph- 
nier)  schloss,  und  denen  beiden  gleichsami  als  Anhang  die  den 
iibrigen  gegeniiber  in  einer  Ausnahmestellung  befindlichen  Am- 
brakioten  und  Lepreaten  angefiigt  waren."  But  in  Frick's  first 
group)  of  Mainland  states  we  find  Aegina,  among  his  Island 
states  the  Eleans,  Potidseans,  and  Anactorians.  Further,  there 
is  no  good  reason  for  the  exceptional  position  of  the  Ambraciots 
and  Lepreatse. 

2.  Rawlinson3  says :  "With  regard  to  the  order  of  the  names 
in  the  inscription,  we  may  remark,  that,  while  it  is  to  some  ex- 
tent irregular,  it  is  not  wholly  so.  In  the  earlier  part  the  guid- 
ing principle  is  that  of  the  greater  importance,  which  miay  be 

traced  as  far  as  the  seventh  or  eighth  name -.  After  this 

the  prevailing  idea,  is  the  geographic  one.  First  the  Pelopon- 
nesian  states  are  given;  then  those  of  central  Greece;  then  the 
eastern  islanders;  finally  the  outlying  states  towards  the  west. 
The  irregularities  are  difficult  to  account  for:  perhaps  they 
arise  chiefly  from  additions  (made  at  one  or  other  extremity  of 
a  line)  of  states  omitted  at  first.  Mv/caveTs  at  the  commence- 
ment of  line  7,  noraSatarat  at  the  close  of  line  10,  and  Kv0noi, 
2i'<£vioi,  at  the  close  of  line  11,  are  perhaps  such  additions." 
Besides  the  difficulties  admitted  by  Rawlinson,  it  may  be  pointed 
out  that  the  Eleans  and  Lepreatse  are  Peloponnesian  and  not 
"outlying  states  towards  the  west"  strictly  speaking. 


^abricius,  1.  c.,  p.  183. 

2Jahrb.  f.  kl.  Phil.,  8  (1862).  p.  451. 

3  History  of  Herodotus,  IV,  p.  400. 


THE  INSCRIPTION  ON   THE  SERPENT-COLUMN  AT  DELPHI.        5 

3.  von  Domaszewski1  holds  that  the  three  most  important 
states,  Lacedsemion,  Athens,  and  Corinth,  stand  at  the  head ;  the 
rest  clearly  fall  into  three  groups,  the  first  of  which,  Tegeai  to 
Tiryns,  includes  the  states  of  the  Peloponnesian  League,  the 
third  group,  from  Potidsea  to  Ambracia,,  contains  the  Corinthian 
colonies,  and  the  second  group  is  composed  of  the  states  under 
the  leadership  of  Athens.  He  holds  the  Tenians,  Siphnians, 
and  Oytlmians  to  be  later  insertions;  the  first  three  names  had 
suggested  the  apportionment  of  three  to  each  coil,  and  the  last 
four  (Leucadians,  Anactorians,  Ambraciots,  and  Lepreatse)  had 
been  divided,  two  to  a  coil.  The  Lepreatse,  he  believes,  stand 
at  the  end  because  they  did  not  belong  to  any  of  the  three  groups. 
This  theory  is  certainly  ingenious,  but  it  is  not  difficult  to  pick 
holes  in  it.  Why  should  the  Mycenians  and  Eleans  belong  to 
the  Athenian  League,  or  the  Thespians  for  that  matter  ?  Fab- 
ricius,2  too,  asserts  that  there  is  no  reason  for  assuming  the  later1 
insertion  of  the  Cythnians,  so  why  should  they  stand  between 
the  Anactorians  and  the  Ambraciots? 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  first  seven  names,  at  least,  have 
this  position  on  account  of  their  importance ;  that  f  rom  the  Eipi- 
daurians  to  the  Tirynthians  we  have  an  unbroken  series  of  Pelo- 
ponnesian states,  and  from  the  Ceans  to  the  Styrians  an  un- 
broken series  of  Island  states.  But  all  attempts  at  explana- 
tion have  left  us  completely  in  the  dark  about  the  following 
points.  (1)  Why  do  the  Plateeans  and  Thespians  stand  be- 
tween the  Tirynthians  and  Mycenians,  two  cities  so  closely  con- 
nected geographically,  and  grouped  together  by  Herodotus3  asi 
furnishing  at  Platsea  a  combined  force  of  400  hoplites  ?  (2) 
Why  are  the  Eleans  so  strangely  placed  ?  The  suggestion4  thati 
they  falsified  the  record  by  substituting  their  own  name  for 
that  of  the  Pales  (who,  according  to  Herodotus,  were  present 


1  Heidelberger  Jahrbiicher,  1891.     p.  181.     I  cite  from  Sitzler's  sum- 
mary in  Jahresb.  f.  Altertumswiss.  83.  p.  81. 
2Loc.  cit.,  p.  183,  footnote. 
3IX.  28.  16. 
4Grote,  Hist,  of  Greece,  IV.  p.  256. 


6  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

at  Platsea)  is  the  only  one  that  approaches  a  solution  from  the 
geographical  point  of  view,  and  even  then  we  can  not  see  why 
the  Potidseans  should  come  between  the  Paleans  and  the  An- 
actorians.  (3)  Why  do  the  Gythnians  (assuming  the  Siphni- 
ans  to  he  a  later  insertion)  separate  the  Ambraciots  from  the 
Anactorians?  (4)  Why  are  not  the  Lepreatse  (as  well  as  the 
Eleans)  placed  among  the  Peloponnesians  ? 

From  the  spoils  of  Platsea  there  was  also  erected  a  monument 
at  Olympia,  a,  bronze  Zeus1  of  ten  cubits,  and  upon  the  base  of 
this,  too,  the  Greek  states  were  inscribed.  The  original  of  this 
inscription  has  not  been  preserved,  but  Pausanias2  has  given  us 
the  list  of  names.  The  problem  of  the  Delphian  inscription  is 
by  no  means  made  easier  by  a  comparison  with  Pausanias'  rec- 
ord, for,  while  the  first  seventeen  names  at  Olympia  are  the  same 
as  the  first  at  Delphi,  with  the  omission  of  the  Thespians,  and 
in  the  same  order,  except  that  the  T'egeans  are  in  the  seventh 
instead  of  the  fourth  place,  in  the  remaining  portions  the  two 
lists  are  a  mass  of  strange  variations  and  startling  correspond- 
ences. 

Frick3  offered  a  correction  of  the  text  of  Pausanias  by  filling 
in  the  four  missing  namies  (Thespians,  Ecretrians,  Leucadians 


1Hdt.  IX.  81.  6. 

2  V.  23:  Kat  avrts  w?  TT/OOS  apKTOV  eTricrrptyavri  ayaA/xa  ecrrt  Aid?,  rovro 
TCTpaTTTai  /x€j/  Trpos  avLcr^ovra  lyAtov,  avtOtcrav  8e  'EAAT/vwv  ocrot 
IIAaTaiacriv  €/xa^e(ravTO  cvai/Tta  MapSovtbv  re  Kat  MiySwi/.  ei(7t  8c  Kat 
€yy€ypa/x./Aei/at  Kara  rov  ftdOpov  TO.  Se^ta  at  /xerao-^ovtrat  TroA'ets  rov  e/ayov, 
AaKcSat/xonot  /xev  TT/OWTOI,  /xera  8e  avrov?  'A^TyvaToi,  rpiroi  8e  yeypa/x,yu,€i/ot  Kat 
rf.ro.proL  Ko/otv0tot'  re  Kat  SiKvwvtot,  Tre/XTrrot  Se  AtytVT/rat,  /xera  8«  AtytvT/ra? 
MeyapeTs  Kat  'ETrtSavptot,  'ApKaSov  8e  Teyearat  TC  Kat  'O/o^o/xevtot,  CTTI  Sk 
avroT?  o(7Ot  3>\iovvra  Kat  Tpoifcrjva  Kat  'Ep/xtova  otKOvcrtv,  CK  Se  x^Pas  TVS 
'Apyctas  Ttpvv^tot,  IIAaTaiet?  8c  /xovot  Botwrcov  Kat  'ApyetW  ot 
€^ovT€?,  vrycrtwrat  8«  Ketot  Kat  M^Atot,  '  A/a/JpaKtwrat  8e  e^ 
TT}S  ®£(77rp(OTi8oSj  T^vtot  re  Kat  AcTTpearat,  AeTrpeaYat  /xev  TWV 
CK  r^5  Tpt<£vAtas  /xdvot,  CK  8e  Atyatov  Kat  ro>v  KvKAaSwv  ou  T^not  /xdvot  dAAa 
Kat  Na^tot  Kat  Kv#i/ioi,  aTro  8e  Ev^Sota?  SrvpeTs,  /xera  8c  TOVTOV?  '  HActot  Kat 
IIoTiSaiaTai  Kat  '  AvaKrdpioi,  TeAevraTot  8e  XaAKtSets  ot  CTTI  TO)  E vpiVa) . 
3I/oc.  cii.,  p.  454. 


THE  INSCRIPTION  ON  THE  SERPENT-COLUMN  AT  DELPHI.        7 

and  Siphnians),  and  cleverly  shifting  the  order  of  the  words, 
so  as  to  agree  with  the  Delphian  inscription,  but,  when  the  order 
on  the  preserved  inscription  itself  is  so  unintelligible,  it  is  dan- 
gerous to  correct  texts  to  correspond  with  it.  von  Domaszewski 
here  offers  another  ingenious  suggestion,  viz.,  that  the  names  on 
the  Olympian  monument  were  arranged  in  three  columns  of 
nine,  nine,  and  ten  ;x  that  there  was  not  sufficients  room  in  the 
third  column,  and  so  the  last  two  names  (the  Ambraciots  and 
Lepreatse)  were  placed  between  the  second  and  third  columns; 
and  that  the  name  of  the  Chalcidians,  being  perhaps  not  under- 
stood at  first  by  the  copyist  f rom  whom]  Pausanias'  record  comes, 
was,  when  deciphered,  placet!  at  the  end.  Apart  from  the  very 
unsatisfactory  attempt  to  explain  the  position  of  the  Chalcidians, 
it  might  be  asked  why  there  was  not  room  in  the  third  column 
for  nine  names,  as  well  as  in  the  first  and  second;  in  that  case 
only  the  Lepreatse  would  be  left  for  insertion  between  the  sec- 
ond and  third  columns.  But,  aside  from  all  this,  von  Domas- 
zewski's  explanation  of  the  Olympian  inscription  only  brings  us 
back  again  to  the  difficulties  in  the  Delphian. 

Is  it  possible  to  find  any  explanation  of  the  order  of  names 
in  Pausanias7  list,  treating  it  by  itself,  and  paying  no  attention 
to  the  actually  preserved  monument  of  Delphi  ?  It  may  be 
stated  as  a  certainty  that,  on  a  base  supporting  a  statue  of  ten 
cubits,  thirty-one  (or  twenty-seven)  names  would  not  be  written 
in  one  vertical  column.  Is  it  not;  possible,  or  rather,  is  it  noli 
probable,  that  these  columns  (whether  three  or  more)  were  ar- 
ranged with  some  attention  to  an  intelligible  grouping  of  the 
states,  and  not,  as  in  von  Domaszewski's  suggestion,  to  be  read 
through  the  first  column,  then  the  second,  and  so  forth,  so  as 
to  get  the  same  result  as  in  the  single  column  at  Delphi  ?  If  thia 
latter  view  were  correct,  the  ^Aaao-iot,  at  the  head  of  the  sec- 


^itzler's  summary  does  not  state  which  states  these  twenty-eight  are. 
If  they  are  the  same  as  D.'s  assumed  twenty-eight  for  the  original  form 
of  the  Delphian  inscription  (i.  e.  omitting  the  Tenians,  Cythnians,  and 
Siphnians),  how  did  two  of  these  get  into  the  Olympian  list,  and  what 
became  of  the  Thespians,  Eretrians,  and  Leucadians  in  the  copy  of 
Pausanias? 


8  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

ond  column,  would  occupy  a  more  prominent  position  than  the 
'AOavaioi,  in  the  second  position  of  the  first.  Is  it  not  more 
likely  that  the  arrangement  was  similar  to  that  which  we  find 
in  the  Athenian  tribute  lists  ?*  The  restoration  which  I  have  at- 
tempted falls  into  three  natural  groups,  (1)  the  Peloponnesians, 
(2)  the  Islanders,  (3)  the  states  of  the  Mainland  outside  of  the 
Peloponnesus.  Such  an  arrangement,  plausible  in  itself, 
amounts  practically  to  a  certainty  when  we  consider  that  it  is 
the  same  as  Herodotus2  uses  in  his  list  of  states  that  were  pres- 
ent at  the  battle  of  Salamis.  Let  us  examine  first  the  objec- 
tions that  may  be  raised  to  this  restoration. 

POINTS  OF  DIFFICULTY. 

1.  In  the  list  of  Pausanias  the  Thespians,  Eretrians,  Leuca- 
dians,  and  Siphnians  are  omitted.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  Bretrians  and  Leucadians  were  inscribed  on  the  Olympian 
monument.  Herodotus3  assigns  to  them  contingents  of  consid- 
erable size  both  at  Salamis  and  Platsea.  They  are  not  found  in 
Pausanias'  list  either  because  of  the  carelessness  of  the  copyist, 
or,  as  I  am  inclined  to  think,  because  they  have  dropped  out  of 
the  text.  Such  omission's  of  proper  names  are  not  uncommon  in 
Pausanias.  The  Siphnians  furnished  but  one  penteconter4  to 
the  fleet  at  Salamis,  and  they  are  admitted  to  have  been  inserted 
in  the  Delphian  inscription  at  a  later  date  than  the  inscribing 
of  the  others.  It  is  probable,  therefore^,  that^  since  they  are  not 
in  Pausanias'  list,  they  were  not  on  the  Olympian  inscription. 
The  case  of  the  Thespians  is  more  doubtful.  Pausanias  ex- 
pressly says  nXarateTs  8e  povoi  Botwroiv.  It  is  impossible,  therefore, 
to  believe  that  the  copyist  made  a  slip;  and  to  believe  that  the 
name  dropped  out  is  here  more  difficult,  for  the  /*ovot  Booorwv 
would  not  be  as  much  in  place  if  both  states  were  inscribed. 
Pausanias  might  as  well  have  used  the  phrase  in  connection  with 


JCf.  C.  I.  A.  I.  244.  &c. 

2VIII.  43-48. 

8VIII.  45.  3;  46.  7;  IX.  28.  19,  22. 

*Hdt.  VIII.  48.  4. 


THE  INSCRIPTION  ON  THE  SERPENT-COLUMN  AT  DELPHI.        9 


a 


q 

CO    O 


r 


1- 


1—  1       <*SJ 

af5 


—j  rn  rr? 

"7^  "7s7     ""]   ^> 

C^  ^~  —  "^ 

H  O  ^  ^ 


0 


o~~0 


> 

^ 


O 


H   H 


33 

O   O 


0 


i-fl 
M  t> 

QQ    O 


IS 


B 


10  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

the  Tegeans  and  Orehomenians,  for  there  were  other  Arcadians 
who  went  toi  Thermopylae,1  and  to  the  Isthmus,2  but  who  did 
not  fight  at  Platsea.  The  other  case  of  /^voi  in  this  passage — 
Aorpearat  /ACV  raiv  e*  -n}?  Tpt^vXias  ju-ovot  —  is  also  of  the  kind  in 
which  but  one  out  of  a  number  of  cities  was  represented.  The 
conduct  of  the  Thespians  at  Thermopylae,3  in  refusing  to-  leave 
Leonidas  like  the  rest  of  the  allies,  certainly  entitled  them  to  a 
place  of  honor;  yet  it  is  a  noticeable  fact  that  none  of  the  states 
present  at  Thermopylae,  unless  they  were  also  at  Plataea,  are  in- 
scribed on  either  monument.  The  Locrians  and  Phocians4  may 
have  been  justly  omitted,  for  they  later  joined  the  Persians,5 
though  against  their  will ;  but  why  should  no  mention  be  made 
of  the  Mantineans  and  other  Arcadians,  who  fought  with  brav- 
ery and  success  for  two  days  at  Thermopylae,6  especially  if  they 
were  sent  away  finally  by  Leonidas,  as  Herodotus  believes.7  It 
would  almost  seem  as  if  Thermopylae  gave  no  title  to  a!  place 
on  these  two  rolls  of  honor.8  The  Thespians,  indeed,  were  also 
present  at  Plaleea,,  but  athey  had  no  arms."9  Whether  Herodo- 
tus means  by  this  that  they  were  non-combatants,  or  merely  that 
they  were  not  hoplites,  is  not  clear,  but  his  way  of  summing  up 
the  69,500  light-armed  men  without  the  Thespians  seems  to  fa- 
vor the  former  view.  Taking  into  account  this  statement  of 
Herodotus  with  reference  to  Plataea  I  am  inclined  to  hold  the 
opinion  that  the  Thespians  were  not  on  the  Olympian  inscrip- 
tion, and  that  Herodotus  is  in  a  way  accounting  for  it.  Their 
insertion  in  the  later  inscribed  list  at  Delphi  was  due  to  the 
Lacedaemonians,  who  took  the  opportunity  both  to  raise  the  Te- 
geans from  seventh  to  fourth  place,  and  to>  reward  the  Thespians 
for  remaining  with  Leonidas. 


1Hdt.  VII.  202. 

2Hdt.  VIII.  72. 

3Hdt.  VII.  222. 

*Hdt.  VII.  203. 

BHdt.  IX.  31.  23. 

6Hdt.  VII.  212.  9. 

7VII.  220.  25. 

8Cf.  [Dem.]  Neaera,  §97. 

°Hdt.  IX.  30. 


THE  INSCRIPTION  ON   THE  SERPENT-COLUMN  AT  DELPHI.     11 

2.  The  variation  in  the  size  of  the  letters  from  the  Tirynthi- 
ans  on  may  be  defended  on  the  ground!  that  it  gives  the  Pelo- 
ponnesians,  apart  from,1  the  poorly  represented  Tirynthians,  My- 
cenians,  and  Lepreatse,1  a  more  prominent  place  than  the  minor 
states   outside.       The   Tirynthians,   Mycenians,   and   Lepreatae 
should  come  below  the  T'roezenians  and  Hermionians,  but  lack 
of  room  prevented.       'Lack  of  room!,  also,  can  account  for  the 
greater  crowding  and  smaller  letters  of  the  rest  of  the  inscrip- 
tion. 

3.  The  Tenians  were  a  later  insertion  on  this  as  well  as  on 
the  Delphian  monument. 

4.  The  Eleans  occur  on  both  monuments.     In  substituting  the 
Paleans  for  them,  I  have  returned  to  a  suggestion  made  many 
years  ago.2     The  Means  secured  the  substitution  of  their  own 
name  in  place  of  the  Paleans  at;  Delphi  by  bribery ;  at  Olympia 
the  change  lay  in  their  own  power.     It  was  no  difficult  matter 
to    turn    IIAAES    into    FAAEIOI.     The    arguments    in  favor 
of  this  view  are,  first,  the  impossibility  of  accounting  for  the  po- 
sition of  the  Eleans  in  any  other  way;  and,  secondly,  the  fact 
that  Herodotus  expressly  says  that  the  Paleans  fought  at  Pla- 
tsea,3  while  he  gives  reasons  for  the  omission  of  the  Eleans4  from 
the  monuments.     The  falsification  was  thus  effected  after  his 
time.     I  can  not  entertain  the  suggestion  that  Herodotus  mis- 
took FAAEIOI  for  nAAEioi.5 

5.  There  is  difficulty  in  arranging  the  three  names,  Paleans, 
PotidaBans,  and  Anactorians,  so  that  the  copyist  might  read  them 
before  the  Chalcidians,  without  abandoning  the  natural  order. 
The  position  I  have  given  them,  while  not  .satisfactory,  seems  to 
me  not  altogether  improbable.6 

'Hdt.  IX.  28.  16. 

2Brondstedt;    Grote  History  of  Greece    (Murray,   1888)    IV.  p.   2562; 
Schubart,  Jahrb.  f.  kl.  Pn.,  8  (1861).  p.  480. 
3IX.  28.   23. 
4 IX.  77.  10. 

'Beloch,  Jahrb.  f.  kl.  Ph.  137  (1888).  p.  324. 
"See  below,  p.  15. 


12  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

ARGUMENTS  FOR  THE  RESTORATION. 

1.  The  grouping  is  geographically  satisfactory,  and  the  names 
might   naturally   be   copied    in   Pausanias7    order   by   reading 
straight  across,  first  those  in  larger  letters,  then  those  in  smaller. 
We  thus  ge>t  an  explanation  of  the  position  of  the  Platseans  be- 
tween the  T'iryiithians  and  Mycenians,  of  the  Ambraciots  be- 
tween the  Melians  and  Tenians,  and  of  the  very  peculiar  com- 
bination    Tiyj/tot     re     /cat    AeTrpearat,    a    combination     that     is 
utterly  incomprehensible  from  any  point  of  view  except  that  of 
some  accidentally  close  conjunction  on  the  inscription. 

2.  The  division  into  three  geographical  groups,  the  Pelopon- 
nesians,  the  Islanders,  and  those  of  the  outer  mainland  is  the 
same  as  that  of  Herodotus1  in  his  enumeration  of  the  states  that 
furnished  contingents  of  ships  at  Salamis,     And  not  only  this 
general  agreement  in  order  exists,  but  a  closer  comparison  re- 
veals a  striking  similarity  in  the  order  within  the  groups.     With 
the  Peloponnesian  group  in  the  reproduction,  compare  the  fol- 

lowing from  Herodotus  I2      eo-Tpareuovro  Se  otSe*   €/c  /xev  TLeXoTrovvrjorov 
Aa/ceSai/xdviot   e/c/caiSeKa  veas    Tra/oe^o/xevoi,    Kopi'v$tot  8e    TO    avro  7r\r)pa)/j.a 

2i/cvoW>t     Se     Trevre/catSe/ca 


The  agreement  in  order  is  exact.  The  same  is  true  of  the  main- 
land group  in  the  inscription,  and  this  passage  from  Herodotus  : 

OVTOL  fjiev  vvv  He\oirovvr)(Ti(DV  eoTparevovTO,  ot  8e  CK  r^s  €^w  ^Tretpov, 
'AOrjvaLOL  fJiev  Trpos  Travra?  roi>?  aAAov?  Trape^o/Aevot  veas  oySwKovra  KOL 
e/carov  —  .  MeyapeTs  Se  TOOVTO  TrXrjpwfM  Trapet^ovro  /cat  CTT'  'Apr€/xt(rta),  'A/x^8- 
paKtcorat  8e  eTrra  veas  e^ovres  eTreySo^rycrav,  Aev/caStot  Se  rpeT?.  In  the 

case  of  the  islands  we  have  on  the  inscription  the  geo- 
graphically satisfactory  arrangement  Aegina,  Cyclades,  Eiubcea. 
Here  Herodotus  enumerates  the  separate  states  according  to  the 
size  of  their  contingents,  so  that  the  Chalcidians  and  Eretrians 
naturally  stand  above  the  smaller  islands.  Two  islands  occur  in 
Herodotus'  list  which  are  not  on  this  inscription,  the  Siphnians 
and  Seriphians.  Of  the  former  I  have  already  spoken.  The 


43-48. 
43. 


THE  INSCRIPTION  ON   THE  SERPENT-COLUMN  AT  DELPHI.     13 

Seriphians  do  not  occur  on  either  inscription.  Herodotus  says 
they  furnished  only  one  penteconter,  but  the  same  is  true  of 
the  Siphnians.  It  is  evident  that  Herodotus1  obtained  his  in- 
formiation  about  the  Seriphians  from  some  other  source  than 
these  inscriptions,  as  he  did  also  in  the  case  of  the  Orotoniats 
and  Lemnians.  But  in  the  case  of  vhe  Seriphians  he  obtained 
his  information  at  a  time  later  than  the  writing  up  of  this  part 
of  his  history,  for  in  chapter  66  he  speaks  of  all  the  Islanders 
being  with  the  Persians  "except  the  five  states,  of  which  I  men- 
tioned the  names  before.'7  !Nb\v  in  chapter  46  six  islands  are 
mentioned,  Ceos,  Naxos,  Oythnos,  Seriphos,  Siphnos,  and  Me- 
los.  Stein  remarks  in  a  note  that  Herodotus  has  forgotten  the 
Ceans,  but  without  assigning  any  reason  for  its  being  these 
rather  than  any  of  the  others.  One  might  rather  say  that  he 
had  forgotten  the  Naxians,  for  they  had  given  earth  and  water 
to  Persia,1  and,  besides,  Ceos,  Cythnos,  Seriphos,  Siphnos,  and 
Melos  form  a  geographical  group  as  the  westernmost  of  the  Cy- 
clades,  so  that  the  five  would  naturally  be  thought  of  together. 
But,  since  the  Seriphians  are  not  on  either  monument,  it  seems 
to  be  more  probable  that  Herodotus  got  his  information  about 
them  at  a  later  date,  and  that  he  inserted  them  in  chapter  46, 
but  overlooked  his  statement  in  chapter  66.  Mention  of  the 
Tenians  is  not  made  in  chapter  46,  but  reserved  until  the 
time  of  their  desertion  just  before  the  battle.2  A  Lemnian  tri- 
reme also  deserted,3  but  they  did  not,  like  the  Tenians,  thereby 
win  a  place  on  the  monument.  This  is  because  the  one  Tenian 
trireme  no  doubt  represented  their  whole  force,  and  none  re- 
mained on  the  Persian  side,  whereas  Lemnos  must  have  fur- 
nished a  larger  contingent,  and  the  desertion  of  one  trireme 
would  therefore  not  entitle  them  to  a  place.  In  this  connection 
it  may  be  remarked  that  Oroton  was  not  inscribed  because  the 
one  trireme,  credited  to  them  by  Herodotus,  was  not  furnished 
by  the  state,  but  by  a  private  individual.4 

1Hdt.  VIII.  46.  10. 

2VIII.  82. 

3VIIL  11,  82. 

4Hdt.  VIII.  47;  Pausan.  X.  9.  2. 


14  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

3.  A  comparison  of  the  restoration  with  the  linel  of  battle 
at  Plateea,  as  given  by  Herodotus/  also  furnishes  strong  proof 
of  its  correctness.  Beloch2  has  already  expressed  the  opinion 
that  Herodotus  took  his  line  of  battle  from  the  inscription  at 
Delphi.  His  view  has  not  been  universally  accepted,  for  while 
the  names  are  the  same,  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  prove  that 
Herodotus  derived  his  order  from  it.  But  a,  comparison  with 
the  reproduction  of  the  Olympian  inscription,  proves  the  entire 
correctness  of  Beloch's  general  point  of  view  concerning  the 
source  of  Herodotus'  detailed  statements  about  the  Greek  states 
at  Artemisium,  Salamis,  and  Platsea.  The  likeness  is  most 
striking  on  the  left  side  of  the  line.  Herodotus'  order  f rom  the 
Peloponnesians  on  to  the  left  of  the  line  is :  Eretrians,  S  tyrians, 
Chalcidians,  Ambraciots,  Leucadians,  Anactorians,  Paleans, 
Aeginetans,  Megarians,  Plateaus,  Athenians.  This  order  was 
clearly  found  by  reading  the  inscription  from  left  to  right ;  the 
Euboean  group  is  followed  by  the  northwest  group,  and  the 
names  of  each  group  are  given  as  they  stand  on  the  inscription ; 
then  he  passes  on  up  to  the  Athenians.  In  placing  the  Platseans 
next  to  the  Athenians,  Herodotus  is  either  following  tradition,  or 
making  an  inference  from  the  certainly  existing  tradition3  about 
the  Spartans  and  Tegeans,  and  the  known  close  connection  of 
the  Platseans  and  Athenians.  The  Athenians  are  thus  given  a 
division  of  close  adherents  to  balance  the  Sipartans  and  Tegeans. 
The  same  reason  will  account  for  placing  the  Potidseans  beside 
their  mother  city,  Corinth.  On  the  right  side  of  the  line  the 
Phliasians  and  Hermionians  stand  together  both  in  the  inscrip- 
tion and  in  Herodotus.  But  most  striking  of  all  is  the  combi- 
nation of  the  Tirynthians,  Mycenians  and  Lepreatse  in  both. 
How  else  could  Herodotus  have  conceived  the  idea  of  combin- 
ing the  Lepreatse  with  the  (other  two  ?  How  clear  the  arrange- 
ment is  from  this  point  of  view,  and  how  incomprehensible  the 
combination  of  the  Ambraciots  and  Lepreatee  on  the  Delphian 

'IX.  28. 

2Jahrb.  f.  kl.  Ph.  137  (1888).  p.  326. 

3Hdt.  IX.  26  ff. 


THE,  INSCRIPTION  ON  THE  SERPENT-COLUMN  AT  DELPHI.     15 

inscription,  of  the  Tenians  and  Lepreatee  in  Pausanias'  list! 
Finally,  in  comparing  the  inscription  with  the  line  of  battle  at 
P'lateea,  there  should  be  noted  Herodotus7  words  TeAevraToi  &  KM 

TT/OWTOI  ' 'AOrjvaloL  €Ta(rowTo,  Kepas  IXOVTCS  TO  cvaVu/xov. 

Some  further  remarks  may  be  made  upon  the  order  of  the 
states  within  the  groups.  Ihe  importance  of  the  state  is  the 
chief  factor  in  determining  its  position,  but  some  regard  has 
also  been  paid  to  geographical  situation.  In  the  Peloponnesian 
group  the  Lacedaemonians,  Corinthians,  Sicyonians,  Epidauri- 
ans,  and  Tegeans  are  clearly  the  m|ost  important,  and  are  in 
their  proper  relative  positions.1  As  to  the  rest  it  is  not  easy  to 
form  a  definite  opinion  of  their  relative  strength.  As  I  believe, 
with  Beloch,  that  Hjerodotus'  report  of  their  representation  at 
Salamis  and  Platsea  is  based  very  largely  on  the  order  in- the  in- 
scription, I  can  not  use  his  figures  as  an  argument.  But  it  may 
be  pointed  out  that  the  Orchomenians  and  Phliasians  follow  the 
Tegeans  in  a  natural  geographical  order,  and  that  to  put  Troezen 
above  them,  as  might  be  done  on  the  basis  of  Herodotus'  figures, 
would  separate  the  geographically  connected  Trcezenians  and 
Hermionians. 

In  the  island  group  the  order  Aegina,  Oyclades,  Euboea  is  a 
natural  one  geographically.  It  is  unnecessary  to  analyze  the 
positions  further;  yet  I  might  venture  the  suggestion  that  the 
order,  Ceans,  Tenians,  Xaxians,  Melians,  Cythnians,  makes  a 
circle  of  the  Oyclades, 

In  the  third  group  it  might  be  objected  that  P'ale  is  noti  on 
the  mainland.  To  this  it  may  be  replied  that  Herodotus2  uses 
the  term  VT/O-IWTCU  in  a  restricted  sense,  in  contrast,  e.  g., 
with  Chios  and  Samos.  Further,  in  placing  the  Plaleans  so  as 
to  agree  with  Pausanias'  order,  it  is  necessary  to  put  them  in 
the  space  between  the  Island  group  and  their  geographical  neigh- 
bors, the  Anactorians.  As  to  the  Leucadians,  we  may  perhaps 
find  support  here  for  a  modern  theory:  with  regard  to  them; 
Herodotus,3  at  any  rate,  classes  them  with  ol  c/c  -ri}?  !£a>  ^ 


xOn  the  Epidaurians  and  Tegeans  see  p.  29. 
'VIII.  46.  1;  Vfl.  95.  1. 
SVIII.  44-5. 


16  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

The  Potidaeans,  too,  may  have  been  placed  near  the  Eubceans, 
instead  of  directly  under  the  Anactorians,  with  some  reference 
to  their  geographical  neighbors. 


THE  RELATION  BETWEEN   THE  DELPHIAN   AND  OLYMPIAN 
INSCRIPTIONS. 

If  the  above  explanation  of  the  Olympian  inscription  is  the 
true  one,  can  we  get  from  it  any  light  upon  the  order  of  the 
states  at  Delphi  ?  From  the  Tirynthians  on  we  have  in  the  two 
lists  a  number  of  peculiar  variations,  and  even  more  peculiar 
similarities.  In  both  there  is  the  insertion  of  the  Platseans  be- 
tween the  Tirynthians  and  Mycenians;  in  both  the  connection 
of  the  Ambraciots  and  the  Lepreata3,  though  in  Pausanias  the 
Tenians  come  between  these  two.  On  the  Delphian  we  find 
together  the  Styrians,  Ejeans,  P'otida^ans,  Leucadians,  and  An- 
actorians;  in  Pausanias  the  Styrians,  Eleans,  Potidseans,  and 
Anactorians.  These  combinations  are  in  themselves  so  peculiar, 
that  but  one  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  they 
are  found  in  both  lists.  If  the  restoration  of  the  Olympian  in- 
scription is  correct,  the  Delphian  must  have  been  copied  from  it. 
This  idea  had  occurred  to  Schubart1  as  long  ago  as  1861,  though 
he  confessed  his  inability  to  explain  how  the  results  before  us 
could  thereby  be  explained.  It  is  not  quite  the  method  one 
would  naturally  choose,  to  attempt  to  explain  the  difficulties  in 
an  original  inscription  by  assuming  it  to  be  a  copy  from  one 
of  which  wre  have  but  a  mere  imperfect  copy.  One's  first  in- 
clination is  to  proceed  from  the  original,  and  force  the  copy 
into  line  with  it.  Still  the  facts  above  stated  speak  for  them- 
selves, and  we  have  one  important  historical  statement  that 
makes  the  assumption  not  imlprobable.  There  can  be  no  objec- 
tion1 to  the  belief  that  the  names  were  inscribed  upon  the  Olym- 
pian monument  at  the  time  of  its  erection.  In  the  case  of  the 
Delphian  v/e  have  the  authoritative  statement2  that  Pausanias 


'Jahrb.  f.  kl.  Phil.  7  (1861).  p.  480. 
2Thuc.  I.  132. 


THE  INSCRIPTION  ON   THE  SERPENT-COLUMN  AT  DELPHI.     17 

had  inscribed  upon  it  an  arrogant  distich  containing  his  own 
name,  and  that  the  Lacedaemonians  caused  this  to  be  removed, 
and  inscribed  in  its  stead  the  names  of  the  states  that  joined 
in  overthrowing  the  Barbarians.  It  is  by  no  means  an  improb- 
able assumption  that  the  Lacedaemonians,  in  carrying  out  this 
substitution,  took  a  copy  of  the  inscription  at  Olympia,  But 
can  the  order  at  Delphi  be  explained  as  a  copy  of  the  restoration 
I  have  made?  Some  difficulties  are  still  left,  but  they  do  not 
compare  with  the  difficulties  in  the  inscription  as  it  stands.  In 
the  first  place  they  moved  the  Tegeans  from!  seventh  to  fourth 
place.  Here  at  least  there  is  no  difficulty.  The  story  that 
Herodotus1  gives  us  of  the  contest  between  the  Athenians  and 
Tegeans  for  the  honor  of  leading  the  left  wing  is  exactly  the 
kind  of  tradition  which  we  should  expect  to  grow  up,  if  at  the 
time  of  this  second  inscribing  there  had  been  aroused  some  jeal- 
ousy of  the  Tegeans,  and  some  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Siey- 
onians,  Aeginetans,  and  Epidaurians1,  to  being  thus  poished 
down  in  the  list.  The  Lacedaemonians  also  inserted  the  Thes- 
pians after  the  Platseansi  on  account  of  their  heroic  conduct  at 
Thermopylae.  In  the  rest  of  the  list  the  engraver  seems  to!  have 
been  allowed  to  follow  the  copy  of  the  Olympian  inscription  as 
he  willed.  As  far  as  the  Melians  he  read  the  names  in  the  same 
order  as  Pausanias.  Then,  struck  by  the  geographical  mixture 
that  would  result  from  taking  the  Amibraciots  next,  he  followed 
straight  down  the  column  with  the  Naxians,  Eretrian®,  and 
Ohalcidians.  The  Styrians  naturally  came  next,  from  whom  he 
was  led  across  more  easily,  on  account  of  the  crowding  at  this 
point,  to  the  Pales  and  Potidaeans.  The  Leucadians  were  ob- 
served as  closely  connected  with  the  Anactorians,  and  it  then 
remained  to  go  back  and  pick  up  the  missing  names.  All  of  this 
may  not  seem  probable,  but  at  least  the  fact  remains  that  a  copy 
of  such  an  inscription  as  is  given  in  the  restoration  accounts 
for  the  insertion  of  the  Platseans  between  the  Tirynthians  and 
Mycenians,  for  the  juxtaposition  of  the  Ambraciots  and  Leprea- 
tse,  and  for  the  combination  Styrians,  Eleans,  and  Potidaeans. 

»IX.  26-7. 


18  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

And  these  are  the  chief  difficulties  in  the  order  of  the  names  on 
the  Delphian  inscription.1 


xFrick's  longer  article  (Jahrb.  f.  kl.  Phil.  Suppl.  Ill)  did  not  come 
into  my  hands  until  the  first  proofs  of  this  paper  had  been  read.  His 
labored  explanation  of  the  position  of  various  states,  e.  g.,  of  the  Sicy- 
onians,  Aeginetans,  and  Megarians,  would  be  found,  perhaps,  the  most 
convincing  proof  that  the  Delphian  inscription  was  a  copy  from  the 
Olympian. 


HERODOTUS,  AND  THE  GREEK  FORCES  AT  SALAMIS.  19 


HERODOTUS,  AND  THE  GREEK  FORCES  AT  SALAMIS 
AND  PLATAEA. 


In  his  account  of  the  battles  of  Salamis  and  Platsea  Herodo- 
tus has  given  us  very  definite  statements  concerning  the  size  of 
the  contingents  supplied  by  the  various  Greek  states.  His  fig- 
ures have  been  for  the  most  part  accepted,  and  introduced  into 
our  histories  as  at  least  the  best  attainable  information,  and  not 
improbable  except  in  a  few  particulars.  Still  there  have  not 
been  wanting  scholars  to  cast  doubt  upon  the  value  of  Herodotus' 
account.  The  criticisms  that  have  attracted  most  attention, 
have  been  made  by  Beloch1  and  H.  Delbruck. 2  The  latter,  who 
deals  particularly  with  Plateea,  accepts  as  substantially  correct 
Herodotus'  figure  of  38,700  hoplites,  but  rejects  the  larger  part 
of  the  lightrarmed  men,  basing  his  conclusions  upon  the  usual 
composition  of  the  Greek  army  at  that  day.  Beloch,  arguing 
from  the  probable  population  of  the  Greek  cities  and  their  fight- 
ing strength  as  exhibited  in  later  wars,  cuts  down  the  contin- 
gents of  Sparta,  Corinth,  Megara,  Sicyon,  and  Platsea,  leaving 
the  total  number  of  hoplites  at  27,600.  The  whole  force  under 
the  command  of  Pausanias  is  fixed  by  Beloch  at  about  60,000, 
by  Delbruck  at  35-40,000.  Beloch  has  also  pointed  out  a  few 
improbabilities  in  the  roundness  of  Herodotus'  numbers,  and  ex- 
pressed the  belief  that  some  of  the  totals  were  the)  primary  fig- 
ures from  which  the  separate  figures  were  derived,  rather  than 

Beloch,  Die  Bevolkerung  der  griechisch-romischen  Welt  (1886),  and 
Das  griechische  Heer  bei  Plataa  in  Jahrb.  f.  kl.  Phil.  137.  p.  324  ff. 
2  Delbruck.  Die  Perserkriege  und  die  Burgunderkriege   (1887). 


20  STUDIES   IN  HERODOTUS. 

the  reverse.     In  this  paper  I  hope  to  establish  the  correctness 
of  his  view  by  a  more  careful  analysis  of  the  figures  than  has  yet 

been  miade. 

I.       ARTEMISIUM  AND   SALAMIS. 

At  Artemisium  there  were  assembled,  according  to  Herodo- 
tus,1 271  triremes  and  9  penteconters.  The  Athenian  contin- 
gent numbered  12  7,  but  before  the  final  engagement  there  ar- 
rived a  reinforcement  of  53  Athenian  ships,2  bringing  their 
complement  up  to  180,  the  samle  as  at  Salamis,  The  desertion 
of  a  Lemnian  trireme  from  the  Persians  during  the  stay  at 
Artemisium  is  also  recorded.3  After  the  retreat  from  this  out- 
post., and  reassembling  at  Salamis,  Herodotus  again  enumerates 
the  separate  contingents4  and  gives  a  sum  total  of  378  triremes,5 
and  seven  penteconters.  Later6  he  tells  us  that  just  before  the 
battle  a  Tenian  ship  deserted  to  the  Greeks,  and  remiarks  that 
with  the  Lemnian  deserter  this  brought  the  total  number  of  tri- 
remes up  to  380. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  separate  items  given  in  the  case 
of  Salamis  amount  to  366,  and  not  to  378.  Such  errors  in  cal- 
culation are  common  in  Herodotus,  That,  in  this  case,  the  mis- 
take lies  in  one  or  more  of  the  separate  itemfc  is  proved  by  the 

'VIII.  1,  2.  *VIII.  43-48. 

2VIII.  14.  'VIII.  48. 

•VIII.  11.  "VIII.  82. 

Artemisium.  Salamis. 

Peloponnesus.       Outer  Mainland .  Islands. 

Athenians 127  Lacedaemonians.    16  Athenians 180 

Corinthians 40  Corinthians     ....     40  Megarians 20  Aeginetans 30(42) 


Megarians 20  Sicyonians . . 

Chalcidians 20  Epidaurians 


Aeginetans 18  Troezenians . 

Sic vonians 12  Hermionians 


15  Ambraciots....      7  Chalcidians 20 

10  Leucadians...        3  Eretrians 7 


5  Ceans 2 

3  210  Naxians   4 

Lacedaemonians  10  Styrians 2 

Epidaurians 8  89  Cythnians 1 

Eretrians 7  210  JTenians 1 

Troezenians 5  67(79)  

Styrians 2  67(79) 

Ceans 2  366(378) 

Lemnos  &  Croton      2 

271 

368(380) 
Penteconters  :— 

Ceans 2        Penteconters: -Ceans  2,  Melians  2,  Cythnians  1,  Siphnians  1, 

Locrians 7  Seriphians  1—7. 


HERODOTUS,  AND  THE  GREEK  FORCES  AT  SALAMIS.  21 

later  passage  stating  that  the  two  deserters  brought  the  number 
up  to  380.  The  commonly  accepted  explanation  is  that  the 
missing  twelve  belong  to  the  Aeginetans,  for  we  are  told  that 
"they  furnished  30  ships,  but  that  they  had  others  also  manned, 
with  which  they  were  guarding;  their  own  land,  while  with  the 
30  that  sailed  best  they  fought  at  Salamis."1  Support  for  this 
explanation  is  found  in  Pausanias,2  who  says  that  "in  the  Me- 
dian war  the  Aeginetans  furnished  the  greatest  number  of  ships 
after  the  Athenians."  Now  the  Corinthian  contingent  numbered 
40,  so  12  added  to  the  30  of  the  Aeginetans  would  place  them 
just  ahead  of  the  Corinthians^  Still  it  is  possible  that  the  Herod- 
otean  text  in  this  passage  was  the  same  in  the  time  of  Pausanias 
as  it  is  now,  and  that  the  placing  of  the  Aeginetans  in  second 
place  does  not  depend  upon  other  authority,  but  is  an  infer- 
ence from  Herodotus,  whether  by  Pausanias  himself  or  by 
another.  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  Aeginetan  contingent  at 
Artemisium  is  18,  just  12  less  than  at  Salami s,  a.s  the  30  at 
Salamis  is  just  12  less  than  their  assumed  number.  Further  the 
difference  between  18  and  42  is  far  greater  than  in  the  case  of 
any  other  state.  Yet  why  should  Aegina  be  so  poorly  represent- 
ed at  Artemisium  ?  She  could  better  afford  to  send  her  whole 
force  thither  than  when  her  land  was  exposed  to  the  attacks 
of  the  Persian®  at  Phalerum. 

In  his  analysis  of  the  Salaminian  figures  Beloch3  points  out 
that  if  the  180  Athenian  ships  be  subtracted  from  the  total  380, 
200  are  left  for  the  other  allies,  a  round  number  which  he  con- 
siders suspiciously  like  a  primary  assumption,  from  which  the 
separate  contingents  were  deduced.  But  in  the  127  Athenian 
ships  at  Artemiisium  he  finds  a  figure  that  does  not  look  like  in- 
vention, and  he  believes  that  Herodotus  is  here  citing  from  a 
trustworthy  source.  The  reinforcement  of  53  ships,  which  Ath- 
ens sends,  was  arrived  at  by  Herodotus,  so  Beloch  thinks,  by 
subtracting  the  127  from  his  assumed  Athenian  total  of  180'. 

'VIII.  46. 
2II.  29.  5. 
"Bevolkerimg,  p.  510  f. 


22  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

Since  the  Greeks  suffered  severely  at  Artemisium,1  the  Athen- 
ians must  have  had  fewer  than  127  ships  at  Salamis,  and  con- 
sequently it  is  highly  probable  that  Otesias2  is  right  in  giving 
them  110.  Aeschylus3  fixes  the  Greek  total  at  310.  If  the 
Athenians  had  110,  there -would  remain  200  for  the  others,  the 
eame  number  as  Herodotus  gives  them.  Aeschylus  and  Herodo- 
tus, then,  according  to  Beloch,  agree  in  assigning  200  ships  to 
the  non- Athenians,  and  the  numiber,  though  plainly  inexact,  is 
in  itself  not  at  all  improbable.  The  fault  with  this  reasoning  is 
that  Ctesias,  or  some  one  before  him,  migjit  have  arrived  at  the 
number  110  for  the  Athenians,  by  subtracting  Herodotus'  200 
non-Athenians  from  Aeschylus'  total  310.  The  fact  that  Ctesias 
himself  puts  the  Greek  total  at  700,  does  not  render  this  improb- 
able ;  he  may  have'  been  seeking  a  method  of  cutting  down  what 
he  considered  the  extravagant  statement  of  the  philo-Athenian 
Herodotus.  Further,  I  shall  presently  show  that  the  127,  which 
Beloch  considers  so  authentic,  may  have  been  deduced  by  He- 
rodotus himself,  so  that  Ctesias'  110  can  find  no  support  from 
this  source. 

Turning  to<  my  own  analysis  of  Herodotus'  figures,  the  follow- 
ing points  seem  to  me  to  deserve  attention : 

1.  Of  the  380  ships  at  Salamis,  180  were  Athenian.  Among 
the  remaining  200  were  those  classed  as  Chalcidian,  which  were 
furnished  by  the  Athenians,4  but  manned  by  the  Chalcidians 
(Athenian  colonists5).  These  ships  are  sometimes  classed  with 
the  Athenians,  sometimes'  with  the  others,  both  by  modern  his- 
torians, and  by  Herodotus6  himself.  They  number  20,  and  if 
we  put  them  aside,  as  not  belonging  to  the  one  group  more  than 
to  the  other,  we  find  that  the  remaining  360  is  evenly  divided 
into  180  Athenian  and  180  non-Athenian. 


1Hdt  VIII.  16,  18. 

'§26. 

"Persae  339. 

4Hdt.  VIII.  1. 

6Hdt.  V.  77. 

•VIII.  46,  61.     Cf.  Died.  Sic.  XI.  12.  4. 


HERODOTUS,  AND  THE  GREEK  FORCES  AT  SAI^AMIS.     23 

2.  Of  the  180  non-Athenian  shipe  one  came  from  Oroton,1 
and  one  from  Lemnos.2     These  places  are  outside  of  what  He- 
rodotus describes3  as  "all  those  dwelling  within  the  Thesproti 
and  the  Acheron  river."  The  Greeks  within  these  limits  he  sub- 
divides into  the  Peloponnesians,4  "those  from  the  outer  main- 
land/'5 and  the  Islanders.6     Of  the  178  ships  furnished  from1 
this  quarter,  89  came  from  the  Peloponnesus/  and  89  from  thef 
islands  and  outer  mainland.8     Can  this  even  division  be  acci- 
dental ? 

3.  The  fleet  at  Artemisium  is  made  up  of  271  triremes,9  and 
9  penteconters,10  i.  e.  of  28011  ships  including  penteconters.  The 
fleet  at  Salamis  consists  of  380  ships,  excluding  penteconters.12 
Is  there  not  something  suspicious  in  this  round  100  of  differ- 
ence? 

4.  At  Artemisium  there  were  271  triremes,  at  Salamis  380, 
a  difference  of  109.    Amlong  the  ships  that  make  up  this  differ- 
ence are  one  from  Lemnos,  and  one  from  Croton,  which  are  with- 
out the  limits  of  Greece  proper.     The  remaining  107  consist  of 
53  Athenian,  and  54  non-Athenian. 

To  put  this  point  in  another  way:  If  from  the  2801  ships  at 
Artemisium  we  again  subtract  the  20  Chalcidian,  as  being  prop- 
erly neither  Athenian  or  non-Athenian,  we  find  that  the  remiain- 
ing  260  is  composed  of  7  Locrian  penteconters,  127  Athenian 
ships,  and  126  non-Athenian.  The  Locrians,  indeed,  belong 
within  the  limits  of  Greece  proper,  but  they  are  not  found  upon 

'Hdt  VIII.  47. 

2Hdt  VIII.  82. 

3VIII.  47. 

*VIII.  43. 

6VIII.  44. 

6VIII.  46. 

7 Lacedaemonians  16,  Corinthians  40,  Sicyonians  15,  Epidaurians  10, 
Trcezenians  5,  Hermionians  3. 

8Megarians  20,  Ambraciots  7,  Leucadians  3,  Aeginetans  42  (?), 
Ceans  2,  Tenians  1,  Naxians  4,  Cythnians  1,  Eretrians  7,  Styrians  2. 

•VIII.  2. 

^VIII.  1.  11. 

11  Cf.  Diod.  Sic.  XI.  12.  4. 
.  48. 


24  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

the  Olympian  monument,  which  Herodotus  seems  to  have  made 
the  basis  of  his  calculations. 

From  this  point  of  view  the  127  Athenian  ships  can  not  be 
held  to  be  as  exact  and  trustworthy  a  number  as  upon  its  face  it 
seems  to  be. 

5.  Bbloch1  emphasizes  the  improbability  of  the  Athenians 
having  had  as  many  ships  at  Sialamis  as  at  Artemisium.  Let  us 
consider  this  point  more  at  length.  The  Athenian  contingent 
of  127  ships  at  Artemisium  received  a  reinforcement  of  53  be- 
fore the  fighting  on  the  third  day.2  In  the  third  day's  battle 
"the  Greeks  suffered  severely,  and  not  least  the  Athenians^,  one- 
half  of  whose  ships  had  been  disabled."  Within  the  next  two 
weeks  Xerxes  was  in  possession  of  Athens,  the  Athenians  having 
removed  their  households  to  Sialamis,  Aegina  and  Troezen.3 
During  this  time  they  certainly  could  have  done  little  refitting. 
In  the  course  of  their  two  weeks'  stay  at  Salamis  they  no  doubt 
made  repairs,  but  surely,  if  half  of  their  ships  had  been  disabled, 
many  of  them  must  have  been  beyond  rep-air.  Still  there  is  a 
possibility  that  they  had  other  ships  besides  the  200  at  Arte- 
misium manned  by  themjselves  and  the  Ohalcidians,  though  Be- 
loch4  asserts  that  "Herodot  sagt  es — ausdriicklich,  dass  alle 
iiberhaupt  verfiigbaren  attischen  Schiffe  beim  Artemisium  ge- 
kampft  haben."  H|e  does  not  cite  the  passage  in  Herodotus  to 
which  he  has  reference,  but  possibly  it  is  that  in  VII.  144, 
where  it  is  stated  that  the  Athenians  "resolved  then,  when  they 
took  counsel  after  the  oracle  was  given,  to  receive  the  Barbarian 
invading  Hellas  with  their  ships  in  full  force/'  But  we  read  a 
little  earlier  in  the  same  chapter  that  "Themistocles  persuaded 
the  Athenians  to  make  for  themselves  with  this  money  two  hun- 
dred ship^  for  the  war,  meaning  by  that  the  war  with  the  Aegi- 
netans.  And  the  ships,  not  having  been  used  for  the  purpose 
for  which  they  had  been  made,  thus  proved  of  service  at  need  to 


'Bevolkerung,  p.  511. 
2Hdt.  VIII.  14,  15. 
3Hdt.  VIII.  40-41. 
4Bevolkerung,  p.  511. 


HERODOTUS,  AND  THE  GREEK  FORCES  AT  SALAMIS.  25 

Hellas.  These  ships  then,  I  say,  the  Athenians  had  already, 
having  built  them  beforehand,  and  it  ivas  necessary  in  addition 
to  these  to  construct  others."  These  last  words  may  imply  that 
they  had  more  than  the  200  ships  on  hand.  But,  however  that 
may  be,  it  is  still  strange  that  just  180  should  be  present  both 
at  Artemisium  and  Salamis,  after  all  the  damage  they  had  suf- 
fered. Further,  it  is  not  the  Athenians  alone  that  furnished 
exactly  the  same  contingent  at  both  places.  So  also  did  the 
Corinthians,  Megarians,  Chalcidians,  Efcetrians,  Trcezenians, 
Styrians,  and  Ceans.  This,  though  Herodotus  tells  us  that  in 
the  third  battle  at  Artemisium  "many  ships  of  the  Greeks  were 
destroyed/'71  The  case  of*"  the  Troezenians  is  really  amusing. 
At  Artemisium  they  furnished  five  ships.  The  loss  of  one  of 
these2  is  expressly  stated  in  VII.  180,  and  yet,  like  Homeric 
heroes,  the  five  appear  again  at  Salamis. 

6.  A  final  and  minor  point  may  be  made  against  some  of  the 
figures  assigned  to  the  separate  contingents.  Of  the  89  pro- 
vided by  the  Peloponnesians  the  Corinthians  contributed  40,  the 
Sicyonians  15,  the  Epidaurians  10,  and  the  Troezenians  5.  Does 
this  not  suggest  arrangement  ?  A  like  thought  is  suggested  by 
the  Artemisian  figures :  Corinthians  40,  Megarians  20,  Aegi- 
netans  18,  Sicyonians  12,  Lacedaemonians  10,  Epidaurians  8.3 


16. 

2  Also  of  one  Athenian,  and  one  Aeginetan. 

3Beloch,  Bevolkerung,  p.  511,  remarks  "hier  ist  zu  erwagen,  dass 
Herodot  durchweg  runde  Zahlen  giebt:^  1-5,  7,  8,  10,  12,  15,  16,  18,  &c." 
Are  all  of  these  "runde  Zahlen"? 


26  STUDIES  IN  HERODOTUS. 

II.   PLATAEA. 

The  army  at  Plateea  consisted  of  the  following  divisions:1 

Peloponnesian  Hoplites.  Outer  Mainland  and  Islands. 

Lacedaemonians 10,000  Athenians 8,000 

Tegeans 1,500  Plafeeans 600 

Corinthians 52000  Megarians ,   3,000 

Orchomenians 600  Aeginetans   ..,.., 500 

Sicyonians    3,000  Paleans 200 

Eipidaurians  ....    800   Leucadians  &  Anactorians  800 

Troezenians   .....   .....    1,000  Ambraciots    ....    .....       500 

Lepreatse 200  Chaloidians ,.    .  ...       400 

Myeenae-T'iryns 400  Eretrians  &  Styrians...       600 

Phliasians 1,000 

Hermionians 300  14,600 

Potidfeans .  -       300 

23,800  Peloponnesians   ..    23,800 


Total   ..........  38,700 

The  order  of  names,  as  I  have  given,  them,  follows  the  line 
of  battle  in  Herodotus,  with  the  Lacedaemonians  holding  the 
extreme  position  on  the  right,  the  Athenians  on  the  left.  The 
only  variation  I  have  made  is  in  putting  the  Pbtidseans  by 
themselves.  According!  to  Herodotus  they  stood  next  to  the 
Corinthians  at  the  latter's  request..  The  division  into  Pblo^p- 
onnesians  and  non-Peloponnesians  is  my  own,  but,  with  the 
single  exception  referred  to,  it  does  not  affect  the  line  of  bat- 
tle which  is  purely  geographical. 

"Of  the  10,000  Lacedaemonians,"  says  Herodotus,2  "5,000 
were  Spartans,  and  these  were  attended  by  35,000  light-armed 
Helots,  seven  being  assigned  to  each  man."  After  giving  the 
separate  items  as  above  he  proceeds  :3  "These,  except  the  men 
in  attendance  upon  the  Spartans,  seven  per  man,  were  hop- 


IX.  28-30. 
2IX.  28.  3. 
3IX.  29.  1. 


HERODOTUS,  AND  THE  GREEK  FORCES  AT  SALAMIS.  27 

lites,  in  all  38,700.  This  was  the  total  number  of  hoplites  as- 
sembled against  the  Barbarian,  and  the  number  of  the  light- 
armed  was  as  follows :  Of  the  Spartan  division  35,000,  since 
there  were  seven  to  each  man,  and  of  these  every  one  waa 
equipped  for  fighting;  and  the  light-armed  of  the  rest  of  the 
Lacedaemonians  and  Greeks,  since  there  was  one  to  each  man, 
numbered  34,500.  The  total  number  of  light-armed  fighting 
men  was  therefore  69,500,  and  the  whole  Greek  force  assembled 
at  Platsca,  adding  together  the  hoplites  and  the  light-armed 
fighting  men,  was  110,000,  lacking  one  thousand  and  eight 
hundred  men.  And  with  the  Thespians,  who  were  present^  the 
110,000  was  fully  made  up.  For  the  survivors  of  the  Thes- 
pians were  present  in  the  army,  in  number  about  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  men ;  and  these,  too,  did  not  have  heavy  arms." 
In  this  passage  the  additions  are  made  with  remarkable  ac- 
curacy for  Herodotus.  There  is,  however,  one  error.  The 
light-armed  men,  that  attended  the  hoplites  exclusive  of  the 
Spartans,  are  said  to  be  one  per  man,  and  to  foot  up  34,500. 
But,  if  we  subtract  the  5,000  Spartans  from  the  38,700  hop- 
lites, we  get  but  33,700,  a.  discrepancy  of  800.  The  common 
explanation  is  that  Herodotus  meant  that  there  was  about  one 
light-armed  soldier  to  each  hoplite.  The  Greek  is  as  follows:1 

Ot  §€  TO>V  XotTTWV  AttKC&U/AOVtW  Kttt  'EAAj/l/COI/  J/'tA.Ot  tOS  CIS  TTf.pl  €KaCTTOV  €(t>V 
avBpa  TTfVTrjKOO'LOL  Kdl  T€TpaKL(T^L\LOL  KOL  TpKTfJLVplOL  TjOrCLV.  It  is  CleaT  that  <^S 

belongs  with  the  participle,  and  not  the  numeral.  The  words 
are  exactly  parallel  to  those  in  the  line  above,  rfs  v*v  ^Trapi-tr/riK^s 

radios  7T€VTaKLcr^L\LOL  Acai  rpwr/Aupiot  ai/Spcs,  ok  eovTcov  e7rTa,7rcpt  ?/cacrrov  avSpa. 

But  the  case  is  definitely  settled  by  the  follo<wing  passage:2 
"So  now  the  Lacedaemonians  and  Tegeans  were  left  alone,  be- 
ing, with  the  light-armed,  the  former  50,000  in  number,  the 
Tegeans  3,000."  The  50,000  Lacedemonians  are  composed  of 
5,000  Spartans,  35,000  Helots,  5,000  Lacedaemonian  hoplites,3 
and  5,000  light-armed  men,  exactly  one  per  man.  So  the  3,000 

^X.  29.  8. 
2IX.  61.  6. 
3 IX.  28.  3-4. 


28  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

Tegeans  exactly  double  the '1,500  hoplites.1  Thus  we  see  that 
Herodotus  had  in  mind,  not  only  exactly  one  light-armed  man1 
to  each  hoplite  on  the  whole,  but  the  contingent  from'  each  state 
was  one-half  hoplites,  one-half  light-armed  men. 

A  suggestion  in  explanation  of  the  missing  800  has  been 
made  by  H.  D'elbriick,2  and  accepted  as  plausible  by  Hauvette.3 

Delbriick  assumes  that  the  800  light-armed  men,  not  ac- 
counted for  by  Herodotus,  are  the  Athenian  archers,  who  are 
particularly  referred  to  on  two  occasions  in  the  account  of 
the  battle.4  I  have  not  Delbriick7 s  work  at  hand,  and  do  not 
know  by  what  arguments  he  supports  his  suggestion,  but  I  fail 
to  see  why  these  archers  should  not  be  included  in  the  8,000 
Athenian  light-armed  men.  Archers  may  have  been  at  this 
time  a  new  thing  in  Greece,  but  they  were  at  all  events  ^iAoi, 
as,  in  fact,  Delbriick's  hypothesis  admits,  and,  if  Herodotus 
had  regarded  them  as  something  so  important  as  to  be  distinct 
from  the  other  ^\OL,  he  would  have  made  particular  men- 
tion of  their  number,  and  credited  the  Athenians  with  it.  Cer- 
tainly he  seldom  fails  to  give  the  Athenians  all  their  due,  and 
I  should  prefer  to  assume  that  a  sentence  referring  to  the  arch- 
ers had  been  lost:,  rather  than  that  Herodotus  had  neglected  to 
count  them  in  with  the  Athenian  contingent. 

The  suggestion  I  am  about  to  make  will  at  first  sight  appear 
equally  ill-grounded,  but  I  hope  that  it  may  be  justified  by  its 
results.  A  careful  survey  of  the  separate  items  will  show  that 
in  general  the  size  of  the  land  force  is  in  proportion;  to  the  num- 
ber of  ships  furnished  at  Salamis,  and,  as  in  the  case  of  Salamis, 
the  numbers  diminish  as  we  go  down  in  the  list  of  names  in- 
scribed on  the  monuments  at  D'elphi  and  Olympia.  There  are 
two  exceptions  to  this  statement,  which  are  easily  explicable. 
The  Lacedaemonian  land  force  is  very  largei,  their  naval  very 
small.  Sparta  was  a,  land  and  not  a  sea  power.  On  the  other 
hand  the  500  hoplites  assigned  to  the  Aeginetans  is  small  in 

^X.  28.  8. 

20p.  cit.  p.  165. 

3 A  Hauvette,  Herodote,  Historien  aes  Guerres  MSdiques  (Paris,  1894). 

*Hdt.  IX.  22,  60. 


HERODOTUS,  AND  THE  GREEK  FORCES  AT  SALAMIS.  29 

comparison  with  their  30  (42  ?)  ships,  but  naturally  so,  for 
Aegina  was  counted  second  to  Athens  upon  the  sea.  One  other 
state,  and  only  one,  is  noticeable  for  the  lack  of  proportion  be- 
tween its  land  and  sea  forces.  Eipidaums,  which  stands  high 
in  the  list  of  states  on  both  monuments,  seventh  on  the  Olym- 
pian, preceding  even  thei  Tegeans,  who  are  fourth  at  Delphi, 
contributed  but  800  hoplites,  while  the  Tegeans  number  1,500. 
It  migjit,  indeed,  be  claimed  that  their  position  above  Tegea  at 
Olympia  is  due  to  their  being  represented  at  Salamis  by  ten 
ships,  whereas  T'egea  naturally  was  not  represented  at  all.  But 
why  do  the  Sicyonians  contribute  3,000  hoplites  in  comparison 
with  15  ships  at  Salamis,  and  the  TroBzenians  1,000  hoplites  in 
comparison  with  5  ships  at  Sialamis,  while  Epidaurus  has  but 
800  hoplites  to  its  10  ships  ?  My  suggestion  is  that  the  800 
Epidaurian  hoplites  be  doubled  to  1,600.  The  error  might 
easily  occur  because,  as  each  state's  contingent  consisted  ha]f 
of  hoplites,  half  of  light-armed  men,  Herodotus  must  in  figur- 
ing out  the  hoplites  divide  each  contingent  into  two*,  and  here 
he  carelessly  made  the  division  twice.  His  total,  which  should 
be  34,500,  instead  of  33,  TOO,  was  corrected  to  agree  with  the 
separate  items  either  by  himself,  or  by  a  later  hand,  without 
due  attention  to  the  general  result.  A  force  of  1,600  hoplites  for 
Epidaurus  is  fairly  proportionate  to  her  ten  ships,  and  justly 
places  her  above  Tegea,  with  its  1,500,  on  the  monument  at 
Olympia. 

But,  if  such  a  change  is  to  be  made  here,  a  corresponding 
change  must  be  made  elsewhere,  for  there  is  no  mistake  in  Hen 
rodotus'  statement  that  the  items  as  he  gives  them  foot  up  to 
110,000  men.  Hjere  we  note  that  the  force  of  1,800  men  as- 
signed to  the  Thespians1  is  excessive.1  Thespise  had  lost  700 
men  at  Thermopylae,2  yet  they  appear  at  Platsea  with  1,800 
men,  more  by  one^half  than  was  furnished  by  the  Plateeans. 
Look  at  the  Greek  passage  concerning  the  Thespians: 


(Jahr.  f.  kl.  Phil.  1888,  p.  326)   says  the  figure  is  "nur  ein 
liickenbiisser,  um  die  11  myriaden  vollzumachen." 
2Hdt.  VII.  202  and  222. 


30  STUDIES   IN   HEBODOTUS. 


^crav,  /it^s  ^tXtaSo?^  TT/OOS  8e  OKTaKO(rtW  di/Spwy  KaraSeowat.  (rw  Sc 
©ecTTrtewv  Toim  TrapeovoT.  e£e7rA.i;powTO  at  evSexa  /xvptaSes'  Trapf)(rav  yap  /cat 
©eoTTiecov  ei/  TO>  OTparoTreSa)  ot  Trepteoi/Tes,  apiOfAov  cs  oKTaKocrtovs  /cat  ^tXtovs. 

How  easily  that  wcroicoorMw  might  have  been  slipped  in 
here  by  one  who  had  noted  that  the  figures  as  they  stood  were 
1,800  short  of  the  110,000,  and  not  merely  1,000.  The.  1,000 
men  thus  left  to  Thespise  are  what  we  should  expect  as  com- 
pared with  the  1,200  of  the  Platseans,  who  stand  above  the  oth- 
ers on  the  monument  at  Delphi. 

If  the  above  correction  be  accepted,  the  total  number  of  hop- 
lites,  exclusive  of  the  5,000  Spartans,  is  34,500,  instead  of 
33,700,  and  the  figure  is  thus  in  exact  agreement  with  the  total 
number  of  light-armed  men,  exclusive  of  the  Helots.  But  this 
total  of  34,500  is  very  suggestive  of  a  more  rounded  figure,  viz.  : 
35,000.  Did  not  Herodotus  start  from  the  35,000  ?  Turning 
back  to  the  Thespians,  whom  we*  left  with  1,000  men,  instead 
of  1,800,  we  note1  that  "they  had  no  arms."  Herodotus,  indeed, 
leaves  us  in  doubt  whether  they  are  to  be  classed  as  "light 
armed"  or  as  non-combatant's.  From  his  phrase  \f/i\w  /xei/  8^ 

7JV  TO  TT\f)OoS  t£  TC  /XVptttSe?  KOL  €VV£a  ^lAtaSc?  Kat  €Ktt- 

TreVre8  we  might  infer  that  they  were  not  included  in  the 
"fighting  men."  After  their  losses  at  Thermopyla3  and  the  aban- 
donment of  their  city  before  the  advancing  horde  of  Persians, 
they  were  presumably  unable  to  equip  their  citizens  for'  bat> 
tie.3  If  Herodotus  could  have  assigned  them  to  the  fighting 
force,  no  doubt  he  would  have  divided  them  into  500  ho<plites 
and  500  light-armed  men,  and  our  totals  for  hoplites  and  light- 
armed,  exclusive  of  Spartans  and  Helots,  would  have  been 
35,000  each.  And  the  number  of  Helots  is  also  35,000! 
Oan  this  similarity  be  accidental  1  And  even  if  my  conjecture 

xHdt.  IX.  30.  9:    o-rt^a  ds  ovd>  ovroi  sixor. 

2  IX.  30.  1  if. 

3  Why  were  the  Thespians  worse  off  than  the  Plataeans?    Herodotus 
(VIII.  44)  records  that  the  latter  attempted  to  save  their  households; 
why  not  also  the  Thespians?     If  their  loss  of  700  men  at  Thermopylae 
incapacitated   them  for  further   service,   whence   these   1,800   men   at 
Plataea?    Has  the  omission  of  their  names  on  the  Olympian  monu- 
ment any  bearing  on  these  questions? 


HERODOTUS,  AND  THE  GREEK  FORCES  AT  SALAMIS.  31 

about  the  Thespians  and  EJpidaurians  be  set  aside  as  uncon- 
vincing, the  suspicion  of  manipulation  is  not  removed  from 
Herodotus;  for,  if  we  take  the  figures  as  they  stand,  and 
compare  the  34,500  light-armed  men  with  the  35,000  Helots, 
we  can  not  but  wonder  at  their  similarity. 

Further,  there  is  a  case  of  equal  division  of  forces  at  Platasa 
parallel  to  those  at  Salamis.  I  indicated  above  that  the  Pelop- 
onnesian hoplites  numbered  23,800.  If  .the  800  extra  Elpidau- 
rians  be  added  to  this  we  get  24,600.  Now,  as  at  Salamis,  we 
subtracted  the  Athenians  from  the  total  ^and  found  the  other 
half  equally  divided  between  the  Peloponnesians  and  non- 
Peloponnesians,  let  us  in  this  case  subtract  the  Lacedaemonians, 
and  compare  the  same  groups.  We  find  the  remaining  Pelop- 
onnesians to  number  14,600,  while  the  non-Peloponnesians 
are  14,900.  The  two  bodies  are  not  in  this  case  ex- 
actly identical.  There  is  a  difference  of  300  between  them. 
Is  it  a  mere  accidental  coincidence,  or  it  is  due  toi  Herodotus' 
manipulation  that  the  Potidseans,  who  number  300,  are  in  the 
line  of  battle  at  Platsea,  grouped  with  the  Corinthians  on  the 
Peloponnesian  side  of  the  line,  this  being  the  sole  exception  to 
a  purely  geographical  line  of  battle  with  P'eloponnesians  on  the 
right  side,  non-Peloponnesians  on  the  left?  If  this  is  not  a 
matter  of  accident,  the  case  recalls  that  of  the  Ohalcidians  at 
Salamis,  who,  as  Athenian  colonists,  were  grouped,  now  with 
the  Athenians,  now  geographically.  If  the  Potidseans,  as  re- 
cent Corinthian  colonists,  be  counted  neither  with  their  geo- 
graphical neighbors,  nor  with  their  kinsmen  by  blood,  the  same 
sum  of  14,600  hoplites  remains  upon  the  Peloponnesian  and 
noii-Peloponnesian  side  of  the  account,1 

A  minor  point  may  be  briefly  referred  to.  I  stated  above 
that  the  figures  at  Platsea  were  in  a  general  way  proportional 
to  those  at  Salamis.  In  a  few  cases  the  proportion  is  striking 
enough  to  deserve  mention.  The  Sicyonians  contributed  15 
ships  to  the  fleet  with  a  complement  of  3,000  men;  their  hop- 

*It  may  also  be  pointed  out  that  the  Potidaeans  do  not  dwell  "within 
the  Thesproti  and  the  Acheron  river." 


32  STUDIES   IN  HERODOTUS. 

lites  at  Platsea  numbered  3,000.  The  Troezenians  sent  five 
ships  with  a  complement  of  1,000;  their  hoplites  numbered 
1,000.  The  Hermdonians  sent  three  ships  with  a  complement  of 
600,  and  600  is  the  sum  of  their  hoplites  and  light- armed  sol- 
diers at  Platsea. 

In  the  chapter  following:1  his  enumeration  of  the  Greek 
forces  Herodotus  tells  us  which  of  the  Greek  states  were  op- 
posed to  the  various  nations  on  the  Persian  side.  Thus  the 
Persians  fronted  the  Lacedaemonians  and  T'egeans,  the  Medes 
were  opposed  to  the  Corinthians,  Potidseans,  Orehomenians, 
and  Sicyonians,  and  so  on.  Inasmuch  as  Herodotus;  did  not 
know2  how  many  Persians,  Medes,  Bactrians,  etc.,  there  were 
in  Mardonius'  arnry,  and  as  only  the  Lacedaemonians,  Tegeans, 
and  Athenians  came  into  actual  conflict  with  the  enemy,  is  not 
this  line  of  battle  on  the  Persian  side  something  of  an  absurd- 
ity? 

THE    METHOD   OF    HERODOTUS. 

While  some  of  the  points  which  I  have  made  may  be  found 
artificial,  enough  will  remain,  I  believe,  toi  prove  that  Herod- 
otus manipulated  his  figures.  It  is  impossible  to  accept  at  their 
face  valuu  all  these  equal  divisions  and  round  numbers.  How 
does  such  a  conclusion  affect  our  opinion  of  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  Herodotus  as  a  historian  ?  Even  if  we  do  not  proclaim 
him  the  'Father  of  Liars/  shall  we  at  least  throw  aside  as  worth- 
less his  statements  concerning  the  Greek  and  Plersian  arma- 
ments •  ?  The  answer  is  not  to  be,  given  lightly  in  the  affirma,- 
tive.  Let  us  consider  the  problem  that  confronted  Herodotus. 
He  must  have  been  intensely  interested  in  determining  as  ac- 
curately as  possible  the  size  of  the  Greek  armaments  that  met 
the  traditionally  enormous  Persian  host,  and  hardly  less  so  in 
fixing  the  comparative  services  of  the  more  important  states  at 
least.  How  was  the  problem  to  be  solved?  Of  contemporary 

*ix.  31. 

2VII.  60;  VIII.  113. 


HERODOTUS,  AND  THE  GREEK  FORCES  AT  SALAMIS.  33 

documentary  and  inscriptional  evidence  there  could  be  but  lit- 
tle dealing  with  actual  figures.  He  must  have  been  forced  to 
depend  largely  on  oral  tradition,  and  in  such  a  case  what  was 
oral  tradition  worth.  ?  The  events  had  occurred  in  his  infancy, 
perhaps  forty  years  before  he  had  opportunity  for  investiga- 
tion near  the  scenes  of  action.  National  Greek  pride  would 
tend  to  diminish  their  own  force  in  comparison  with  the  Per- 
sians, while  the  local  feeling  of  each  state  would  magnify  its 
services  in  comparison  with  its  rivals.  Consider  how  the  Athen- 
ian orator  in  Thucydides,1  boasting  to  the  Spartans  of  Athens' 
deeds  in  the  service  of  Greece,  claims  that  his  city  furnished 
little  less  than  two  parts  of  about  400  ships;  how,  again,  Isoo- 
rates  in  the  Panegyric,  in  a  passage  that  contrasts  the  prowess 
of  Greeks  and  Persians,2  claimjs  that  the  Athenians  met  the 
whole  Persian  fleet  at  Artemisium  with  sixty  triremes;  while, 
a  little  later  in  the  same  address,3  where  the  comparative  serv- 
ices of  Athens  and  Sparta  are  the  theme,  he  says  that  at  Sal- 
amis  Athens  contributed  more  triremes  than  all  the  other 
states  combined.4  There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  if  Herodotus  had 
accepted  the  claims  of  the  various  states  concerning  their  own 
forces,  the  sum  total  of  these  claims  would  have  gone  enor- 
mously beyond  the  traditional  total  accepted,  by  Greece  as  a 
whole,  and  far  beyond  the  probable  figure.  What  then  was 
Herodotus  to  do  ?  What  he  did  do  was  to  fix  first  upon  a  prob- 
able total.  In  making  his  estimate  for  Salamis  he  seems  to 
have  accepted  practically  the  Athenian  claimi,  while,  in  the  case 
of  Plateea,  he  adopted  the  figures  of  Sparta,  the  most  powerful 
military  state  on  land,  as  Athens  was  on  the  sea.  There  is  sub- 
stantial proof  that  Athenian  tradition  placed  their  own  force 
at  Salamis  at  200  ships.  Take,  for  example,  the  story  cited 
by  Herodotus5 — quite  apart  from  any  discussion;  of  the  num- 
bers,— the  story  of  Themistocles'  reply  to  the  Corinthian  Adi- 

al.  74. 

2§90. 

3§97. 

4Cf.  Dem.  XVIII.  238. 

•VIII.  61. 


34  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

mantus,  who  had  taunted  him]  with  being  a  man  without  a 
city.  "We,"  be  said,  "have  both  a  city  and  a  land,  larger  in 
fact  than  yours,  so  long  as  we  have  200  ships  fully  equipped." 
Again,  in  connection  with  the  oracle  concerning  Athens'  "bul- 
wark of  wood,"  Herodotus,1  after  giving  the  interpretation  of 
Themistocles,  goes  on  to  say :  "Another  suggestion  of  Themis- 
tocles  before  this  one  proved  most  opportune,  when  the  Athen- 
ians, having  large  sums  of  money  in  the  public  treasury,  which 
had  come  in  from  the  mines  at  Laurium,  were1  going  to  divide 
it  by  giving  ten  drachmas  to  each  man.  Then  Themistocles 
persuaded  the  Athenians  to  abandon  this  division  and  make 
200  ships  for  the  war,  meaning  the  war  against  the  Aeginetans. 
For  this  war  was  the  saving  of  Greece,  by  compelling  the 
Athenians  to  become  a  naval  power.  And  the  ships  were  not 
used  for  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  made,  but  became  in 
this  way  a  help  to  Greece  in  time  of  need."  Such  were  the 
stories  from  which  Herodotus  formed  his  idea  of  the  size  of 
the  Athenian  fleet  at  the  time  of  the  Persian  invasion,  and 
Athens'  power  in  his  own  day  confirmed  his  opinion.  He  ac- 
cepted the  figure  200,  but  not  quite  at  its  face  value.  He  as- 
signed 180  to  the  Athenians,  the  other  20  were  manned  by  the 
Chalcidians.  What  evidence  there  was  for  this  disposition  of 
the  20,  it  is  impossible  to  say,  but  there  may  be  some  connec- 
tion between  this  figure  and  the  fact  that  Athens  had  sent 
4,000 2  cleruchs  to  Ohalcis  some  thirty  years  before,'  200  men 
being  the  complement  of  a  ship.  In  this  connection  I  may  call 
attention  to  the  position  of  the  Chalcidians  at  the  bottom  of 
the  list  on  the  Olympian  inscription.  Considering  how  great 
influence  the  size  of  the  contingent  had  had  in  determining 
the  order,  this  position  of  a  state  that  shared  fourth  place  with 
the  Megarians  at  S'alamis  (third  place  at  Artemisiumi)  is  note- 
worthy. The  fact  that  they  did  not  provide  their  own  ships 
may  account  for  it.  By  lending  the  20  shipB  to  the  Chalcid- 
ians, the  Athenian  total  was  cut  down  to  180.  If  Herodotus 


'Vll.  144. 

2Hdt.  V.  77:  Boeckh,  Staatshaus,  I.  p.  564. 


HERODOTUS,  AND  THE  GREEK  FORCES  AT  SALAMIS.  35 

arrived  at  this  figure  by  calculation,  the  following  reasons  may 
have  influenced  him.  There  probably  was  an  Athenian  tradi- 
tion that  they  provided  as  many  ships  as  all  the  other  states 
together.  To  double  200  would  give  a  figure,  much  beyond  the 
310  of  Aeschylus,  and  probably  also  beyond  the  general  Greek 
claim  for  the  total.  With  the  Athenian  figure  cut  down  to  180, 
the  corresponding  180  of  the  others,  and  the  20  of  the  Chal- 
cidians,  a  total  of  380  was  reached.  Efven  this  is  much  larger 
than  the  310  of  Aeschylus ;  but  Herodotus  had  the  task  of  get- 
ting a  large  number  of  individual  claims  within  a  total  much 
too  small  for  them);  and,  further,  it  is  not  strange  that  an  Asi- 
atic Greek,  who  takes  some  prMe  in  narrating  the  exploits  of  the 
lonians1  even  against  their  fellow  Greeks,  should  be  willing 
to  place  the  total  at  a  somewhat  higher  figure  than  the  pride  of 
Hellas  proper  was  willing  to  admit.  With  the  non-Athenian 
figure  thus  fixed  at  180,  Herodotus  assigned  half  to  the  Pelo- 
ponnesians,-and  half  to  the  remaining  states.  In  the  further 
subdivision  it  is  clear  that  the  Olympian  inscription  was  largely 
used  in  scaling!  down  the  individual  claims  and  giving  them 
their  proper  proportions.  No  doubt,  also,  the  relative  strength 
of  the  states  in  Herodotus'  day  had  its  influence.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  suppose  that  he  actually  collected  evidence  for  all 
the  minor  states.  The  inscriptions  proved  their  participation, 
and  they  were  accordingly  assigned  a  contingent,  However, 
we  have  a  strong  proof  of  the  carefulness  of  his  investigation 
in  the  fact  that  he  assigned  contingents  to  three  states  not  men- 
tioned on  either  monument,  viz.,  Oroton,  Lemnos,  and  Seri- 
phos.2 


'VIII.  85,  87,  90. 

2On  the  Pales  see  p.  11.  ».  I  do  not  misinterpret  him,  Beloch  (Jahrb. 
f.  kl.  Ph.  137.  p.  324  f.)  believes  that  Herodotus  knew  little  beyond 
what  he  inferred  from  the  Delphian  inscription.  He  seems  to  imply 
that  he  proves  this  position,  when  he  accounts  for  the  absence  of  the 
Crotoniats,  Seriphians,  Locrians,  and  Paleans  from  the  inscription. 
But,  surely,  he  really  thereby  proves  how  diligent  ana  careful  the  in- 
vestigation of  Herodotus  was,  when  he  was  able  to  supplement  so  com- 
plete a  list  as  the  inscription  gave  him.  That  he  placed  so  high  a 
value  on  the  inscriptional  record  is  entirely  to  his  credit,  even  though 
he  used  it,  perhaps,  in  a  somewhat  unwarranted  way. 


36  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

As  to  the  relation  between  the  figures  for  Salamis  and  Arte- 
misium  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that,  since  the  figure  280  at 
Artemisium  includes  the  penteconters,  so  also  the  380  at  Sa- 
lamis were  originally  intended  to  include  the  penteconters. 
There  is  not'  much  evidence  in  support  of  such  a  view  but  it 
might  be  noted  that  (1)  Herodotus'  own  figures  do  not  make 
up  the  total  number  of  triremes  claimed;  (2)  the  even  division 
at  Artemisium!,  assigning  127  to  the  Athenians,  126  to  the 
others,  recognizes  and  counts  in  the  penteconters  (2  Deans)  ; 
a  similar  recognition  of  the  seven  Island  penteconters  would  be 
probable  in  dividing  the  180  non- Athenian  ships  at  Salamis 
equally  between  the  Pbloponnesians  and  the  other  allies;  (3)  in 
figuring  outi  the  relations  between  the  Salaminian  and  Arte- 
misian  numbers,  there  is  a  possibility  for  a  slip  in  the  fact  that 
the  seven  Locrian  penteconters  were  present  at  Artemisium 
alone ;  is  there  any  connection  between  this  seven  and  the  seven 
penteconters  by  which  the  total  number  of  ships  at  Salamis 
goes  beyond  the1  380  ?  On  this  theory  the  Aeginetan  ships  would 
number  35,  instead  of  42. 

In  the  case  of  Platsea  tradition  may  have  fixed  the  total  at  a 
round  100,000,  of  which  the  Spartans,  not  toi  be  outdone  by  the 
Athenians,  claimed  one.-half.  'Now  Herodotus  must  have 
known  that  5,000  hoplites  for  the  Spartans  was  an  outside 
limit,1  and  the  only  way  of  reaching  the  total  of  50,000  was  by 
having  an  extraordinary  number  of  Helote  per  Spartan.  With 
5,000  hoplites  assigned  to  the  Lacedaemonian  P'ericeci,  and  an 
equal  number  of  light-armed  men,  it  would  take  35,000  Helots 
to  make  up  the  required  sum.  The1  relation  of  this  figure  to 
the  totals  of  light-armed  and  hoplites,  excluding  the  Spartans, 
has  already  been  pointed  out.  In  fixing  upon  the  size  of  the 
separate  contingents,  there  was  the  same  balancing  of  tradition, 
contemporary  strength,  and  position  in  the  inscriptions,  as  in 
the  case  of  Salamis.2 


'On  the  improbability  of  this  figure  see  Stein,  Jahrb.  f.  kl.  Ph.,  1862. 
p.  853  ff.  Cf.  Hdt.  VII.  103.  20;  234.  10. 

2 1  can  not  refrain  from  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that,  if  we  look 
at  the  Plataean  figures  in  the  light  of  the  restored  inscription,  we  find 


HERODOTUS,  AND  THE  GREEK  FORCES  AT  SALAMIS.  37 

I  might  call  attention  to  a  few  points  in  the  Persian  figures. 
In  the  total  of  5,283,220*  the  odd  3,220  come  from  the  7  in 
the  1,207  ships,  which  Herodotus  derived  from  Aeschylus.2 
There  were  200  men  in  each  ship  with  an  addition  of  30  Per- 
sian marines.3  This  gives  1,610  men,  which  becomes  3,220  in 
the  final  doubling.4  Doubling,  indeed,  is  the  most  prominent 
feature  of  the  calculations.  The  1,207  ships  yield  241,400 
men.  These  1,207  were  war  ships;  in  addition  to  them  there 
must  have  been  many  transports  and  penteconters.  The  easiest 
way  to  arrive  at  the  number  of  these  was  to  double  the  240, OOO5 
men  on  the  war-ships,  assign^an  average  crew  of  SO6  to  each 
ship,  and  thence  deduct  the  3,0007  penteconters,  transports,  etc. 
It  is  a  small  matter  that  the  most  of  these  240,000  are  non- 
combatants,  yet  get  themselves  doubled  at  the  end  on  the 
ground  that  the  number  of  non-combatants  equaled  all  those 
hitherto  calculated.8 


that   the   8000   Athenians   balance   the   5000   Corinthians   and   3000    Si- 
cyonians    in    the    opposite    column;     the    500    Aeginetans    and    3000 
Megarians  balance  the  1600  Epidaurians,  1500 'Tegeans,  and  400  Tiryn- 
thians  and  Mycenians;  lue  600  Plataeans  balance  the  600  Orchomenians. 
And,  if  one  chooses  to  carry  it  further,  the  1500  Phliasians,  Hermion- 
ians,  and  Lepreatae  in  the  lower  right-hand  corner  of  the  Peloponne- 
sian  column  balance  the  1500  North-west  Greeks  in  the  lower  right-hand 
corner  of  the  other  group;  leaving  the  1000  Troezenians  to  be  set  over 
against  the  1000  Euboeans.     So,  if  my  suggestion  that  the  Aeginetans 
furnished  35  ,ships  (see  p.  36),  were  correct,  the  40  Corinthian  and  15 
Sicyonian  ships  would  balance  the  35  Aeginetan  and  20  Megarian. 
'VII.  186.  11. 
2Persae  341, 
3VII.  184.  7,  11. 
4VII.  186.  7. 

5 Herodotus  deserves  credit  for  his  self-control  in  not  doubling  the 
odd  1,400. 
•VII.  184.  15. 
7VII.  94.  10,  184.  16. 

8  Something  might  also  be  made  of  the  cavalry  figures  (Vll.  84-6, 
184),  if  it  were  not  for  a  couple  of  palpable  errors,  one  in  the  text,  and 
one  due  apparently  to  an  oversight  of  Herodotus.  The  latter  is  his 
reckoning  the  Libyan  and  Arabian  drivers  of  chariots  and  camels  at 
20,000  men  (VII.  184.  24),  omitting  mention  of  the  Indians,  who  were 
in  part  also  charioteers  (VII.  84.  5).  Then  in  VII.  84-86  we  have  the 
enumeration  of  the  races  that  furnished  'cavalry,'  with  the  Caspians 


38  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

In  dealing  with  the  Persian  armament,  Herodotus  loses  his 
usual  common-sense  view  of  things.  The  Persian  empire,  in 
its  enormous  wealth  and  extent,  was  so  far  beyond  the  knowl- 
edge and  comprehension  of  the  Greek  of  that  day  that  a  million 
OT  two  more  or  less,  in  men  and  money,  was  a  matter  of  small 
account.  But  the  figures  he  has  given  us  for  the  Greek  states, 
while  in  a  few  particulars  they  have  been  shown  to  be  improb- 
able, are  on  the  whole  perhaps  as  near  the  truth  as  a  modern 
historian  could  come,  working  with  the  same  materials.  We 
may  wish  that  he  had  given  us  the  evidence  from  which  he 
drew  his  conclusions,  but  we  must  not  forget  that,  even  at  the 
present  day,  the  general  reader  sees  nothing  of  the  weighing  of 
evidence,  which  is  buried  in  the  learned  periodical. 


mentioned  twice,  leaving  us  in  doubt  whether  eleven  races  were  in- 
tended, or  ten  (why  not  read  &5?  d>  avrooS  KadnioiSt).  If  ten  races 
furnished  the  100,000  cavalry,  charioteers,  and  camel-drivers  (VII.  184. 
22  ff.),  there  is  a  clear  suggestion  of  10,000  each,  a  suggestion  strength- 
ened by  the  Libyans  and  Arabians  making  together  20,000.  It  might 
be  objected  that  the  Sagartians  had  only  8,000  (VII.  85.  4),  but  the 
Persians  themselves,  to  whom  the  Sagartians  were  very  closely  re- 
lated, furnished  12,000  (VII.  40-1),  so  that  together  they  came  to  an 
even  20,000.  Another  thing  that  casts  doubt  on  the  text  in  chap.  86 
is  the  insertion  of  the  Libyans  among  the  eastern  Asiatics,  in  fact 
between  the  two  Caspians.  In  71  they  are  placed,  according  to  their 
geographical  position,  after  the  Arabians  and  Ethiopians.  In  86  the 
Arabians  might  naturally  be  mentioned  last,  since  they  alone  furnished 
camels;  but  the  Libyans  should  either  immediately  precede  them,  or 
else  follow  the  Indians,  because  these  two  alone  furnished  chariots. 


THE  BATTLE  OF    SALAMIS.  39 


THE  BATTLE  OF  SALAMIS. 


The  perennial  interest  in  this  subject  is  instanced  by  the 
fact  that,  in  the  brief  course  the  present  century  has  run,  there 
have  appeared  three  papers  upon  it  by  well-known  scholars,1 
who  have  made  a  considerable  advance  toward  the  solution  of 
the  problem.  It  is  not,  my  intention  to<  enter  upon  the  discus- 
sion of  the  question  as  a,  whole.  The  main  points  at  issue, 
viz.,  whether  the  battle  was  fought  within  the  sound  or  at  its 
entrance,  and  whether  the  Greeks  were  lined  along  the  shore 
of  Salamis  or  across  the  strait,  seem  to  me  to  have  been  de- 
cided in  favor  of  the  former  alternatives.  The  questions  that 
remain  for  discussion  are  rather  matters  of  the  exact  interpre- 
tation of  particular  passages  in  Aeschylus  and  Herodotus,  and 
in,  the  following1  discussion  I  shall  assume  a  general  knowledge 
of  the  mlain  points,  and  confine  myself  to  a  few  particulars. 

Herodotus2  states  that  on  the  day  before  the  battle  the  Per- 
sians put  out  from  Phalerum  towards  Salamis,  and  formed  in 
line.  Bauer  is  the  first  to  give  this  statement  the  attention  it 
deserves.  Hitherto  it  has  either  been  neglected,  because  Aes- 
chylus does  not  mention  the  movement,  or  an  utterly  improb- 
able position  has  been  assumed  for  the  line  the  Persians  fonned, 
as  e.  g.,  south  of  Psyttaleia.  Now,  in  the  first  place;,  it  can  not 
be  too  emphatically  stated  that  the/  silence  of  Aeschylus  here 
means  nothing.  Those  who  lay  so  much  weight  upon  the  au- 
thority of  Aeschylus,  as  the  only  contemporary  who  describes 

'Ad.  Bauer  in  Berichte  d.  oster.  arch.  Inst.  1901,  p.  91;  Benj.  I. 
Wheeler  in  Proceeds.  Amer.  Phil.  Assoc.  1902,  p.  127;  C.  F.  Adams  in 
Proceeds.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  1903,  p.  383. 

2VIII.  70.  1. 


40  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

the  battle,  often  forget  that  he  is  a  poet,  and  a  dramatic  poet. 
It  does  not  lie  within  his  province  to  instruct  the  spectator 
upon  all  the  preliminaries  that  lead  up  to  the  scene  he  has 
chosen  to  present ;  jet  he  may,  for  the:  greater  vividness  of  his 
picture,  insert  in  his  description  of  a  scene  something  not 
chronologically  belonging  to  it,  Aeschylus  begins  his  descrip- 
tion of  this  battle  with  the  message  of  Themistocles>  to  Xerxes, 
one  of  the  most  important  and  decisive  moments  in  the  strug- 
gle, and  one  of  great  interest  to  his  Athenian  audience.  All 
that  preceded  this  could  be  left  out  of  account,  though  he  might 
use  it,  and  change  the  time  of  its  occurrence  if  necessary.  Tim- 
ing from  the  silence  of  Aeschylus  to  the  interpretation  of  Her- 
odotus' WOrds  —  €?T€t  8e  Trap-rjyyeXXov  avaTrXtiv,  avfjyov  ras  veas  CTTI  rrjv 
/cat  Tra.p€KpiOr)<ra.v  Stara^^eVres  KCIT'  ^orv^tav.  TOTC  ^tev  vvv  OVK 
TTOLrjcracrOaL'  vv£  yap  eTreyevero'  ot  8e 

there  is  certainly  no  definite  state- 
ment of  the  position  of  the  line.  It  would,  perhaps,  be  over- 
stating the  matter  to  claim  that  ^apa  in  TrapeKpiOrja-av  meant  that 
they  formed  their  line  along  something,  as  in  ^e£os  TrapaKCKpt/x/xeVo? 
irapa  rov  atytaAov.1  Still  there  can  not  be  the  slightest  doubt 
that  the  line  was  formed  along  the  Attic  shore.  Wheeler2  has 
well  emphasized  the  fact  that  an  ancient  fleet  preferred  to  fight 
with  its  rear  upon  a  friendly  shore.  It  is  equally  true  that 
it  would  never  occur  to  them  to  spend  the  night  at  sea,  when 
there  was  an  opportunity  to  draw  uip  their  ships  on  land,  or 
at  least  tie  them  to  the  shore.  And  not  only  should  we  place 
the  line  there  from  a  priori  reasons,  but,  when  Herodotus3  goes 
on  to  describe  the  movements  of  the  Persians  after  receiving 
the  message  of  Themistocles,  he  says  "they  put  out  from 

shore"  —  avrjyov     /ucv     TO       d-Tr'      c<nrepr)<;     /cepas — ,      avrjyov     Se      KTC. 

Aeschylus,4  too, — though  this  is  of  less  importance, — describes 
how  each  captain,  on  receiving  -the  orders  of  Xerxes,  went  to 
his  ship  and  set  sail.  Concluding,  then,  that  the,  Persian  fleet 


1Hdt.  IX.  98. 
2Loc.  cit.  p.  131. 
3VIII.  76. 
*Persae  378. 


THE  BATTLE   OF    SALAMIS.  41 

was  lined  along  the  Attic  shore,  the  next  thing  is  to  decide  upon 
its  position.  Bauer  has  the  Persian  ships  ranged  round  the 
harbor  of  the  Pteirseus  and  thence  northwestward  as  far  as  the 
point  directly  opposite  Psyttaleia.  He  is  thus  able  to  give  a 
sensible  interpretation  of  Herodotus'  phrase,  'the  western  wing.' 
He  holds  that  the  Persians  must  have  been  still  outside  the 
sound  "denn  Herodot  bemerkt  (VIII.  78),  die  Griechen  hatten 
in  der  Nacht  von  der  Umsehliessung  noch  nichts  gewusst,  son- 
dern  geglaubt,  die  persische  Flotte  stehe  noch  so  wie  am  Vor- 
tage. — Diese  erste  Aufstellung,  die  bis  Mitternacht  beibehalten 
wurde,  muss  also  so  beschaffeai  gewesen  sein,  dass  sie  bei  den 
Griechen  in  Salamis  die  Befiirchtung  umschlossen  zu  sein  nicht 
aufkommten  liess."  It  is  at  this  point,  that  I  must  take  issue 
with  Biauer,  and  most  of  the  scholars,  who1  have  of  late  handled 
the  subject.  Let  us  look  at  the  matter  first  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  Persians.  Herodotus  says  that  after  the  calm  and 
orderly  formation  of  their  line  there  was  not  time  to  fight, 
but  they  were  getting  ready  for  the  following  day.  Now,  if 
the  Greeks  were  in  the  bay  of  Ambelaki,  what  reason  was  there, 
from  the  Persian  point  of  view,  for  remaining  outside  the 
sound.  If  this  division  into  squadrons  and  formation  of  their 
line  was  to  mean  anything  as  a  preparation  for  the  morrow, 
they  would  retire  to  the  shore  for  the  night  with  the  formiation 
preserved,  and  a  line  of  the  necessary  length  would  naturally 
extend  into  the  sound  a  considerable  distance.  If  they  hugged 
the  shore,  which  was  in  the  possession  of  their  own  troops,  an 
attack  by  the  Greeks  upon  the  entering  line  would  be  imprac- 
tical. I  should  be  inclined  to  assume,  then,  that  the  western 
wing  of  the  Persian  line  at  nightfall  reached  far  in  towards 
O.  Amphiale.  Looking  at  the  matter  next  from  the  Greek: 
point  of  view,  what  would  their  action  naturally  be  under  the 
circumstances  ?  As  I  have  just  said  an  attack  upon  the  enter- 
ing ships  could  only  be  made  by  coming  within  range  of  the 
Persian  archers  on  shore.  They  might  have  thought  of  im- 
mediate flight  to  the  west,  but  this  would  have  exposed  them  to 
a  rear  attack  and  certain  loss  of  a  large  number  of  ships. 


42  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 

Flight,  if  they  thought  of  it  at  all,  miust  be  deferred  until  night. 
But  objection  is  made  to  the  P'ersian  fleet  entering  the  sound 
at  all,  befone  nightfall,  because  Herodotus1  gives  us  to  under- 
stand that  the  Greeks  had  no  idea  at  midnight  that  they  were 
surrounded,  or  in  danger  of  it,  while,  if  the  Persians  had  taken 
up  such  a  position  as  I  have  described,  the  Greeks  would  have 
felt  themselves  already  shut  in.  Is  this  view  correct?  Ac- 
cording to  the  usual  position  assigned  to  the  Persians,  the  east- 
ern (entrance  to  the  sound  was  much  more  effectually  blocked 
than  in  the  position  I  have  assumed.  Escape  could  be  effected 
to  the  west  alone.  If  the  Persians  were  on  shore  as  I  have 
placed  them,  escape  would  still  be  possible  in  both  directions — 
quite  as  possible,  it  should  be  noted,  as  the  unobserved  advance 
of  the  Persians  to  their  blockading  positions,  unless  the  Greeks 
were  so  utterly  careless  in  the  matter  of  outposts  as  to  have 
none  at  the  ends  of  the  points  inclosing  Ambelaki.  But  in  all 
probability,  the  Greek  generals  had  no  idea  of  flight.  They 
had  waited  here  for  some  weeks  with  the  intention  of  fighting 
in  an  advantageous  position,  and  were  not  to  be  frightened  by 
the  mere  advance  which  they  had  been  long  expecting.  The- 
mistocles'  object  in  persuading  the  Persians  to  block  up  the 
entrances  was  to  prevent  any  considerable  number  of  deser- 
tions during  the  night,  and  incidentally  he  kept  a  large  number 
of  the  enemy  rowing  about  and  watching  the  outlets,  not  a  good 
preparation  for  a  kind  of  battle  in  which  so  much  depended 
upon  the  alertness  and  skill  of  the  crew.  As  Herodotus2  thinks 

it  WOrth  while  to  remark,   ot   /xev   Si)  ravra  T^?  VVKTOS  ovStv  a7TOKOt/x>y- 
0€i/rc5  Trapa/oreovro. 

I  find  a  further  argument  for  the  view  that  the  Persian 
west  wing  was  far  within  the  sound  at  nightfall  in  Herodotus' 
description3  of  the  movements  after  Tnemistocles7  message. 
"The  west  wing,"  he  says,  "put  out  to  Salamis  inclosing  them." 
I  can  hardly  believe  that,  if  he  had  in  mind  the  entrance  into 
the  sound  and  movement  along  the  Attic  shore  past  O.  Am- 

'VIII.  78. 
2VIII.  77.  1. 
.  76. 


THE   BATTLE    OF    SAT.AMIS. 

phiale  and  across  to  Salamis,  he  would  have  expressed  it  quite 
so  briefly.     Does  all  this  lie  in  the  single  word  Kv/cAoV™  ? 

In  the  interpretation  of  the  next  clause—  wjyov  S«  ot  ^<f>l  ryv 
Keov  TC  /cat  ryv  KwoVovpav  TCTay/atVot  —  Bauer    takes    the    only 
possible    meaning    of     the     words,     rightly     objects     to    the 
assumption     that     Herodotus     is     thinking    of     the     end    of 
the   movement,    and   boldly   asserts   that  Herodotus   knew  the 
east  wing  w<as  on  the  Attic  shore,  but  used  these  words  in  de- 
scribing it  simply  to  work  in  the  oracle  about  the  bridge  from 
Munychia  to  Cynosura.     In  all  of  this  I  am  in  complete  agree- 
ment with  Bauer,  except  intone  point.     I  can  not  see  why 
Herodotus  could  not  have  said  "those  stationed  about  Ceos  put 
out   to   Cynosura,"    and    thereby   made    the  fulfillment  of  the 
oracle  perfectly  clear.     The  •  simple  fact  is  that  there  is  no 
way  of  interpreting  Herodotus'  words  consistently  with  the  as- 
sumption that  Cynosura  is  the  long  point  of  Salamis.     There 
is  no  other  evidence  that  this  name  was  applied  to  the  point 
than  that  Herodotus  mentions  a  Cynosura  in  his  description  of 
the  battle,  and  this  is  the  point  that  looks  most  like  a  Dog's 
Tail,  on  the  map  at  least.     That  is,  Herodotus  is  our  only  au- 
thority for  the  name,  and  to  assign  it  to  this  point  we  must 
give  an  impossible  interpretation  to  his  words.     But,  it  may 
be  objected,  there  is  the  oracle.        The  oracle  proves  simply 
nothing.     There  are  numerous  points  along  the  Attic  shore, 
and  the  ships  filling  the  strait  from!  any  of  them  to  Munychia 
would  form  a  bridge  so  as  to  prove  a  perfect  fulfilment  of  the 
oracle  to  Herodotus'  easily  satisfied  religious  soul;  or,  to  re- 
move the  weight  from  his  shoulders,  in  order  to  account  for  the 
writing  of  the  oracle,  it  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that  the 
bridge  stretched  from  Munychia  to  the  point  of  Salamis. 

But  let  us  look  at  Herodotus'  reference  to  Munychia.  Fol- 
lowing the  clauses  that  state  the  movements  of  the  eastern  and 
the  western  wings,  we  have  the  words  Karu-^ov  TC  ^XPL  Mowvx*9« 
TravTaTov  vopOfjiov  rrja-i  VTJVCTI.  "As  far  as  Munychia"  is  an  intel- 
ligible phrase  if  the  point  of  Salamis  is  Cynosura,  and  if  the 
Persians  moved  across  from  it  to  Munychia ;  but  the  Persians 


44  STUDIES    IN   HERODOTUS. 

were  not  yet  at  this  point.  There  is  one  other  possibility  for 
the  pfyp1  MOWVXM/S.  Most  writers  take  this  clause,  beginning 
Kard^pv  rt,  to  refer  entirely  to  the  movement  of  the  east  wing. 
Wecklein1  thinks  it  gives  the  result  of  the  movements  in  both 
the  preceding  clauses.  Grammatically  I  am  inclined  to  agree 
with  Wecklein.  This  clause,  loosely  tacked  on  by  the  particle 
re,  belongs  rather  to  the  whole  preceding  sentence,  with  its 
parallel  ^v — and  Se —  clauses,  than  to  the  &— clause  alone. 
Such  an  interpretation  gives  us  the  other  possibility  for  the 
pexpi  Mowvxoys-  Herodotus  has  just  described  the  extension  of 
the  west  wing  over  to  Salamis.  Looking  away  now  in  the  other 
direction  he  sees  the  line  of  ships  extending  eastward  through 
the  straits  "as  far  as  Munychia." 

According  to  Aeschylus,2  on  the  receipt  of  the  message  from 
Themistocles,  Xerxes  issued  the  following  order: 

To£at  vewv  OTIC^OS  /xev  ev  <TTOI'XOIS  rpicrlv 
cKTrAous  <£u\a<7<mv  Kat    Tropovs   aXippoOows, 
aAAas   Se  KVK\(*>  vfjaov  Atavro?  7repi£. 

•The  first  two  lines  clearly  refer  to  blocking  up  the  straits. 
Bauer  thinks  that  the  third  line  refers  to  the  result  of  the  move- 
ment of  the  west  wing  into  the  sound,  and  that  it  describes  the 
position  of  the  Persians  in  the  morning,  as  they  face  the  harbor 
of  Ambelaki.  I  find  this  interpretation  infinitely  preferable 
to  the  attempt  to  explain  the  line  as  referring  to  the  squadron, 
which,  according  to  Diodorus,3  was  sent  round  the  island ;  and 
preferable,  also,  to  the  meaningless  literal  interpretation  which 
makes  the  Persians  place  ships  at  various  points  about  the 
island  to  prevent  escape.  With  Bauer  I  believe  that  the  ships 
which  are  "placed  in  a  circle  about  the  island  of  Ajax"  refer 
to  those  that  face  the  harbor  of  Ambelaki ;  but  instead  of  the 
words  describing  the  movement  explained  by  Bauer,  I  believe 
that  Aeschylus  is  here  describing  the  sight  that  met  his  eye 
when  day  dawned  on  the  morning  of  the  battle.  The  straits 


1  Sitzungsber.  d.  k.  bayr.  Acad.  d.  Wiss.  1892.  p.  22. 

-Persae  366. 

3Diod.  Sic.  XI.  17.  2, 


THE   BATTLE   OF    SALAMIS.  45 

to  the  east  and  west  were  filled  with  a  mass  of  Piersian  ships, 
while  round  the  opposite  shore  of  Attica  there  stretched  for 
three  or  four  miles  a  single  line  of  ships,  which,  viewed  across 
the  narrow  strait,  might  well  give  the  impression  of  encircling 
the  island.  If  this  interpretation  is  correct,  Aeschylus  here 
freely  transfers  to  the  commands  of  Xerxes  what  had  already  in 
part  been  done  in  the  afternoon,  and  thus  completes  his  picture 
of  the  Persian  position  before  the  battle  began. 

Before  leaving  these  lines  I  may  refer  to  Bauer's  view  that 
the  majority  of  the  Persian  ships  were  not  engaged  in  battle  in 
the  sound,  but  employed  in  blocking  the  straits.  This  idea  is 
drawn  in  part  from  Aeschylus'  use  of  the  word  o"rt<£o9, 
but  orrt<£os  does  not  necessarily  mean  what  we  do  by  "the 
mass."  It  could  be  applied  to  a  compact  body  as  opposed  to  an 
extended  line,  even  though  the  line  actually  contained  the 
larger  number  of  ships.  Aeschylus  says  the  ships  blocking  the 
straits  were  in  three  rows.  Further,  by  assuming  that  the  Phoe- 
nicians and  lonians  alone  engaged  the  Greeks,  Bauer  loses  sight 
of  what  was  the  main  cause  of  the  Persian  defeat,  namely,  the 
overcrowding  in  the  sound  and  consequent  impossibility  of 
manceuvering. 

The  further  description  of  Aeschylus,1  beginning  /cat  Travwx04 
&)  StdVA-oov  *a0i'(rra<rav,  I  should  refer  with  Goodwin8  to  the  rowing 
about  of  the  blockading  squadrons.  In  his  explanation  of 
the  occupation  of  Psyttaleia  Goodwin  has  come  round 
to  the  view  that  it  was  made  in  the  expectation  of  the 
Greeks  attempting  to  escape,  and  thus  proves  nothing  for 
the  position  of  the  battle  that  actually  took  place.3  This  seems 
to  me  also  the  preferable  view. 

The  points  made  by  Loschke*  and  Goodwin  based  upon  the 
interpretation  of  11.  398  ff.  in  the  Persa3  are  satisfactorily  an- 
swered by  Bauer  and  Wheeler.  Goodwin  also  makes  much  of 


'382  ff. 

2 Papers  Amer.  School  at  Athens,  I.  p.  246. 
3 Proceeds.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  1903.  p.  405. 
4Jahrb.  f.  kl.  Ph.  1877.  p.  26. 


46  STUDIES   IN   HERODOTUS. 


Aeschylus'  use  of  the  word  pe^a,1  as  if  it  could  only  be 
interpreted  of  a  column  of  ships  entering  the  narrow  strait  ;  hut 
the  interpretation  is  too  literal.  In  11.  87  ff.  of  the  same  play 

Aeschylus  Says  SOKI/AOS  8'  ourt?  VTroo-ras  /AeyaXu)  pev/xaTi  <£a>Twv  e^vpois 
fpKtvw  eipyetv  a/xa^oi/  KVfjua.  0aAa<ro-as;  here  the  advancing  host  of 

Persians  is  at  once  a  pev/*a  and  a  *u/*a.  The  words  are  nothing 
more  than  pictures  of  the  great  numbers.  The  fact  is  that  the 
crowding  and  confusion  of  the  Persian  ships  is  much  more  in- 
telligible if  we  think  of  a  great  encircling  line  converging  upon 
a  center,  than  if  We  take  the  view  that  a  column  of  ships  en- 
tered the  straits;  for  their  greatest  crowding  would  be  at 
the  entrance  itself  and  once  inside  they  could  spread  out 
to  meet  the  Greeks.  As  I  understand  it  the  Greek 
ships  were  arranged  in  a  curve  reaching  from  the  Pimta  Pt. 
to  the  end  of  the  so-called  Cynosura,  and  the  Persians 
came  "streaming"  in  upon  them!  from  all  sides.  Note 

Aeschylus'  description  'EAAr/n/cat  TC  v^c?  OVK  d<£paoyx,ova>s  KVK\O)  7repi£ 

€0e«/tn/.2  The  Greeks  had  learned  the  advantages  of  this  position 
at  Artemisium,3  and  had  cleverly  chosen  their  present 
position,  and  tricked  the  Persians  by  a  false  message, 
so  as  to  force  them  toi  put  themselves  at  a  disadvantage 
again.  According  to  this  view  the  retreat4  of  the 
Greeks  at  the  beginning  might  well  be-  a  manoeuvre5  designed  to 
draw  on  the  converging  line  of  the  Persians,  and  excite  them  to 
neglect,  in  the  ardor  of  pursuit,  the  proper  precautions  against 
collision  with  one  another.  Then  "the  Greek  ships  struck 
skilfully  in  the  circle  round  about." 

In  the  description  of  Diodorus  I  can  find  nothing  of  import- 
ance that  could  not  be  drawn  from  Aeschylus  and  Herodotus. 
Even  his  circumnavigating  squadron  had  nothing  else  for  a 
foundation  than  1.  368  of  the  Persa?,  and  the  corresponding 


'412.     Cf.  Wheeler,  1.  c.,  p.  138. 

2Persae  1.  417  f. 

3Hdt.  VIII.  10,  11,  16. 

*Hdt.  VIII.  84. 

cCf.  Breitung,  Jahr.  f.  kl.  Ph.  1884,  p.  859. 


THE   BATTLE   OF    SAI.AMIS.  47 

story  about  E'uboea.1  I  can  not,  with  Beloch,  take  the  latter 
story  as  the  secondary  one.  In  that  case  there  was  the  neces- 
sity of  aiding  the  Persian  land  force  at  Thermopylae.  The  com- 
mand of  the  Buripus  was  an  essential  as  long  as  Leonidas  con- 
tinued to  block  the  advance.  I  do  not,  with  Adams,  see  the  sim- 
ilar necessity  of  the  Persians  commanding  the  Salaininian 
sound.  From  Athens  to-  the  Isthmus  the  shorter  route  was  out- 
side the  island,  and  the  voyage,  I  take  it,  no  very  dangerous 
one.  With  their  numerical  superiority  the  Persians  should  have 
been  able  to  convoy  grain-ships  across  to  the  army,  while  retain- 
ing a  sufficient  force  at  the  outlets  to  hold  the  Greeks  in  check. 


'In  Diodorus  (XI.  18.  2)  there  occurs  the  statement  that  the  Aegine- 
tans  and  Megarians  occupied  the  right  wing.  "For  it  was  believed  that 
they  were  the  best  sauors  after  the  Athenians  and  that  they  would  be 
particularly  eager  to  distinguish  themselves,  because  they  alone .  of 
the  Greeks  had  no  refuge,  if  any  calamity  befell  them  in  the  battle." 
From  this  passage  the  conclusion  is  drawn  (Duncker,  Gesch.  d.  Alt. 
VII,  p.  283;  Busolt  Rh.  Mus.  1883.  p.  628;  Wecklein,  1.  c.  p.  19)  that 
Diodorus  (Ephorus),  who  is  supposed  in  his  nal  TOV  Ttopov  jueraEv 
SaA.ajuivo's  HOLI  'HpaKhsiov  KOCTEIXOV  to  place  the  Greeks  across  the 
strait  facing  south,  contradicts  himself;  for  if  the  Aeginetans  and 
Megarians  were  on  the  right  wing,  they  were  nearest  the  Salaminian 
shore.  I  can  scarcely  believe  that  no  one  has  yet  pointed  out  the  error 
in  this  conclusion.  Of  course  the  reference  in  Diodorus  to  the  Me- 
garians and  Aeginetans  having  no  refuge  in  case  of  disaster,  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  their  position  in  this  battle.  Diodorus  meant  that,  if 
the  battle  were  lost,  Aegina  and  Megara  were  exposed  to  the  enemy, 
whereas  the  Peloponnesians  could  still  make  a  defence  at  the  Isthmus 
(cf.  Hdt.  VTII.  74.  12). 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


MOV    i 


2LU 

l3Nov'53l'C 
DEC!1? 


MAY  2  9  1962 


'6AFW 


'4ns 


RECTD  ED 

JAN  2  1*64 -4  PH 
U 


21-100m-12,'46(A2012sl6)4120 


U.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDMb5D7DS3 


: 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


